1 2025:CGHC:44503-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2732 of 2025 1. Mehendi Hussain Ansari S/o Late Mansreen Ansari Aged About 51 Years 2. Smt. Firdos Akhtar Ansari W/o Mehendi Hussain Ansari Aged About 42 Years Both R/o Nawagarh Chandmari Road In Front of Hathipakhna P.S. Kotwali Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2. Abdul Khair Khan S/o Late M.A. Gani Aged About 73 Years R/o Habibnagar, Near Mahendra Showroom, Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2.9.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.09.02 17:44:30 +0530 2 respondent No. 1/State. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition with the following prayer: “1. That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of BNSS 2023 filed by the petitioners. 2. That Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing No. 0223/2025 registered on 1/4/2025 at Police Station Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.), for the offence under section 420, 34 of IPC., in the interest of the Justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that a written report was lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2-Abdul Khair Khan, against the present petitioners on 01.04.2025 with the averment that the petitioners had fraudulently sold land bearing Khasra No. 397/112, Rakba 1.104 hectares, to his daughter-in-law for an amount of Rs. 29,15,000/- without disclosing that the land belonged to the Singhdev Scheme. The report further states that in the year 2022, petitioner No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell land bearing Khasra No. 397/112, Rakba 1.104 hectares, situated at village Saskalo, Tahsil Darima, District Surguja (C.G.), for an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The complainant had paid an advance of Rs. 5,00,000/- on behalf of his daughter-in-law. Thereafter, on 30.12.2022, the complainant paid Rs. 29,00,000/- to the petitioners at the time of registry and the sale deed was registered in the name of his daughter-in-law, Smt. Nagma Parveen. Later, when he tried to get the land mutated on the basis of the sale deed, he came to know that the government lease land had been fraudulently sold by the petitioners to his daughter-in-law without 3 obtaining permission from learned Collector, and that the petitioners had taken Rs. 29,00,000/- from him. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 1 fraudulently executed a Mukhtiarnama of leasehold land of one Santu S/o Bigan, which had been granted under the Singhdev Scheme and thereafter, sold the said land in the name of his wife, Smt. Firdous Akhtar Ansari. On the basis of said sale deed, the land was mutated in collusion with revenue officials. Thus, the petitioners committed fraud with the purchaser/daughter-in-law by selling government leasehold land without permission of the Collector, knowingly cheating her of Rs. 29,00,000/-, and failing to return the money. It is further alleged that later petitioner No. 1 issued a cheque bearing No. 25143749701600131 of the Central Bank of India for an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, which was dishonoured. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 223/2025 under Section 420 and 34 of IPC was registered against the petitioners. 4. After registration of the FIR, the petitioners approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. This Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner No. 2 in MCRCA No. 615/2025, vide order dated 01.05.2025, however, rejected the application of petitioner No.1. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made by the complainant against the petitioners are totally false, vague, and do not even prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners. Therefore, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. He submits that actual facts of the case are that in the year 2021, petitioner No. 2 had lawfully purchased land bearing Khasra No. 4 397/112, Rakba 1.104 hectares, situated at village Saskalo, Tahsil Darima, District Surguja (C.G.), and got the land mutated on 25.08.2021. Thereafter, the said land was agreed to be sold to one Smt. Nagma Parveen for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,00,000/- was the brokerage of one broker, Vakil Firdousi. Vakil Firdousi then gave Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner as advance payment for the land deal and obtained the signatures of Mehendi Hussain Ansari on blank papers. Thereafter, on 31.12.2022, a registered sale deed was executed between petitioner No. 2 and Smt. Nagma Parveen. On that date, the petitioner received Rs. 1,50,000/- and it was agreed that the balance of Rs. 7,00,000/- would be paid later. He also submits that broker Vakil Firdousi had taken Rs. 30,00,000/- from the purchaser, Smt. Nagma Parveen, of which the petitioners had no knowledge. When the petitioners demanded the balance amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-, a dispute arose between broker Vakil Firdousi and purchaser Nagma Parveen. Meanwhile, due to certain technicalities at the Patwari level, the aforesaid land could not be mutated in the name of Nagma Parveen, as the land belonged to the Government Singhdev Scheme. Owing to this reason, Nagma Parveen and her father-in-law, Abdul Khair (a retired police officer), became upset. He further submits that on 06.01.2025, Abdul Khair forcefully entered the house of the petitioners, threatened them with dire consequences, and forcibly obtained the signatures of Mehendi Hussain on a cheque (No. 251437) for Rs. 30,00,000/-. A complaint regarding this incident was also filed before the concerned Police Station by petitioner No. 1, and his statement was duly recorded. Petitioner No. 1 had filed several complaints against the complainant 5 much prior to the registration of the present FIR. The instant case is a result of enmity between the parties, as the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners in a frivolous case with the sole intention to harass them and their family. He submits that the complainant/respondent No. 2 is further attempting to harass the petitioners by instituting another false proceeding, as he has also sent a legal notice dated 28.02.2025 in relation to the dishonoured cheque. It is an admitted position that the petitioners have only received Rs. 3,00,000/- in total, whereas the broker received Rs. 30,00,000/-. Petitioner No. 2 is a bona fide purchaser of the aforesaid land, who had subsequently sold the same. The present case is, therefore, nothing but a false and fabricated criminal proceeding arising out of a civil dispute. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the FIR deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the prayer for quashing of the FIR and submits that the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. As such, petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with these petitions. 8. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made 6 in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. From perusal of contents of the FIR, it transpires that the complainant/respondent No. 2-Abdul Khair Khan lodged the FIR on 01.04.2025 alleging that the petitioners fraudulently sold government lease land bearing Khasra No. 397/112, Rakba 1.104 hectares, situated at village Saskalo, Tahsil Darima, District Surguja (C.G.) to his daughter-in-law, Smt. Nagma Parveen, for consideration of Rs. 29,15,000/- without disclosing that it was allotted under the Singhdev Scheme and without permission of the Collector. Further, the fact that petitioner No. 1 executed a forged Mukhtiarnama of leasehold land, sold it in the name of his wife, and got the land mutated in collusion with revenue officials. Later, a cheque for Rs. 30,00,000/- issued by petitioner No. 1 was dishonoured. On that basis, FIR in Crime No. 223/2025 under Section 420/34 IPC was registered against the petitioners. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and also considering the contents of the FIR, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for 7 quashment of the FIR. 11. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu