1 2025:CGHC:2991-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 195 of 2025 1 - Ajay Pincha S/o Late B.C. Pincha Aged About 57 Years R/o Ajay Jewellers, Gandhi Chowk, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Khallari, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gayasingh Nishad S/o Jhanglu Nishad Aged About 57 Years R/o Gram Amlidih, Khamhariya, Tehsil Bagbahra, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17 .01.2025 1. The petitioner who is the accused in the case has filed the present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the registration of the FIR and the charge-sheet filed against him with the following prayer:- 2 1. set aside/ quash the impugned FIR dated 05.06.2022 registered in Crime No. 108/2022 at P.S. Khallari, Mahasamund, in the interest of justice. 2. set aside/ quash the impugned chargesheet no. 135/2022 dated 08.09.2022 issued in Crime No. 108/2022 at P.S. Khallari, Mahasamund, in the interest of justice. 3. set aside/ quash the impugned order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahasamund (CG). 2. The brief facts of the case as emerges from the document annexed with the petition are that on 25/02/2022, the complainant Gaya Singh Nishad made a written complaint to the Police with the allegation that the disputed land of Khasra No. 33/1, area 0.50 Hec. was sold by the present petitioner with the connivance of its purchaser, the witnesses to the sale-deed, the revenue authorities and executed sale deed on 01.01.2022 suppressing the claim of the complainant and the decision comes in favour of the complainant. It is also alleged that earlier the nominal sale deed was executed in favour of the present petitioner for which the revenue case was pending before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bagbehra and on 29.12.2021, the order has been passed in favour of the complainant Gaya Singh despite that the sale deed of the disputed land was executed on 01.01.2022 knowingly fully well that the complainant is the owner of the property and an order has been passed in his favour by the revenue authority. The matter was preliminary inquired by the Police authority and after considering the sufficient material available in the case, registered the FIR against the petitioner and 4 other co-accused persons for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC on 05/06/2022. The matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 08/09/2022 against the petitioner and other four co-accused persons before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahasamund and the Criminal Case No. 1856/2023 is registered and pending 3 for its consideration. The petitioner has challenged the said FIR of Crime No. 108/22 registered at P.S. Khallari, Dist- Mahasamund on 05.06.2022 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC and subsequent charge-sheet No. 135/2022 dated 08/09/2022 and also challenged the order taking cognizance dated 16/05/2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has purchased the subject land from its owner Gaya Singh through registered sale deed dated 10.04.2008 and the said sale deed having the statutory force and tital has been transferred in favour of the petitioner. He is the rightful owner of the property and thereby, he is entitled to alienate the same on his own will. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Bagbehra is set aside by the Addl. Collector, Mahasamund vide its order dated 11/10/2023 and therefore, there is no impediment to exercise his legal rights and his subsequent sell to the prospective purchaser cannot be challenged by the complainant until and unless his sale deed dated 10.04.2008 is turned down by the competent court of law. The complainant is claiming that the sale deed dated 10.04.2008 is not the actual sale but it is the nominal sale deed executed as the security of the loan amount which was borrowed by him, there is no endorsement in the said sale deed that it was executed in security of repayment of loan amount and till its decision of fictitious sale deed, no liability can be imposed upon him. It is purely a civil dispute between the parties which is given in a color of criminality and therefore, the FIR against the petitioner as well as charge-sheet and entire criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that after preliminary inquiry, it is found that despite having knowledge of the fact 4 that the order has been passed by the revenue court against the petitioner, he executed the sale deed without any rightful authority to alienate the property. By the act of the petitioner, prima facie offence of cheating, forgery of the valuable security and using the forged document as genuine is appears to be made out and thereby FIR has been registered and after investigation charge- sheet has been filed. The disputed question of facts involved in the present case which are to be decided during the trial after recording the evidence of the parties and therefore, at this stage, the FIR as well as charge-sheet cannot be quashed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. True it is that the litigation between the parties before the revenue court was pending and the order dated 29/12/2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Bagbehara is set aside by the Addl. Collector, Mahasamund vide its order dated 11/10/2023, the complainant has filed a writ petition(C) No. 3377/2024 before this Court challenging the order dated 11/10/2023 passed by Addl. Collector, Mahasamund which is pending as reflected from Para 2.8 of the pleadings in the writ petition. The fact remains that on 01.01.2022 when the sale deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of the purchaser of the land in dispute, the order was already passed in favour of the complainant on 29/12/2021 by suppressing the fact that on 29/12/2021, the order has been passed against him yet he executed the sale deed on 01/01/2022 which gives rise for lodging to the present FIR by the complainant. Whether or not the complainant have pledged his property with the petitioner and the sale deed dated 10.04.2008 was executed in lieu of security of the loan amount or not and whether the petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently executed the sale 5 deed or not are the disputed question of facts which are to be decided during the course of trial and at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient material available in the charge-sheet to proceed with the trial of the case. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijyendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 389 has considered that availability of civil remedy cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceeding in Para 12 of its judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “12. Learned counsel for the respondents is correct in contending that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to the informant/complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint discloses a criminal offence or not. This proposition is supported by several judgments of this Court as noted in paragraph 16 of judgment in the case of Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka and Another vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited1.” 8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the petition and to quash the FIR as well as charge-sheet against the petitioner, the petition does not have any merit and is hereby dismissed. 9. It is made clear that the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika 1 (2009) 11 SCC 529 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1011