1 2025:CGHC:5723-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2075 of 2022 1 Neeraj Jain S/o Shri Kantilal Jain Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Shankar Nagar, S Mahasamund, Tehsil And P.S. Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Accused) 2 Vikas Chopra S/o Late Shri Prakashchand Chopra Aged About 41 Years R/o Station Road, Mahasamund, Tehsil And P.S. Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Prosecution) 2 Jagdish Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Sukhdev Prasad Agrawal R/o Ward No. 30, Near Sitli Nala, Mahasamund, P.S. And Tehsil - Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent/ State: Shri Sakib Ahmed, P.L. For Respondent(s) No. 02 : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.02.03 23:19:42 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31/01/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 508/2022 registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC at Police Station Mahasamund District – Mahasamund (C.G.). 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that, on 15.11.2022, the respondent No. 2 (Complainant) has lodged the report at police Station- Mahasamund against the accused persons, namely, Golu Madanwar, Imroz Khan and the petitioners with the allegation that on 15.11.2022 at about 8.30 A.M, the petitioners and 2 other accused persons namely Golu Madanwar & Imroz Khan have entered in the complainant/respondent No.2 land bearing khasra No.2052/3, Rakba-0.068 Hectares, situated near Sitli Nala Mahasamund, Tehsil & District- Mahasamund and started excavating and when the complainant/respondent No. 2 has asked the accused persons for not to excavate the subject land, then the accused persons started abusing the complainant with filthy languages and started pushing the complainant with dire consequences. Then the FIR No. 508/2022 has been registered 3 by Police Station – Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC against the petitioners and 2 more accused persons. 3. Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated, as the petitioners are nowhere involved in the instant FIR (Annexure P-1) and only because the petitioners have already filed a complaint before the police authorities on 27.09.2022, against the respondent No.2/complainant, so out of that vengeance, the respondent No. 2 who is a very influential person has lodged the false F.I.R. (Annexure P-1) against the petitioners on 15.11.2022. He further submitted that the petitioners are the owners and in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 2052/1, Rakba 0.131 Hectare & Khasra No. 2052/2, Rakba 0.198 Hectare, situated at Village- Mahasamund, Tehsil- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). The title in the aforesaid lands flows from the Sale-Deed dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure P/2). On 09.12.2021, the respondent No. 2 herein has moved an application before the Court of learned Tehsildar Mahasamund (Respondent no. 3) with the prayer for granting injunction relief against the petitioners and whereas on 09.12.2021, the Court of learned Tehsildar Mahasamund has passed a stay order dated 09.12.2021, ex-parte against the petitioners, knowingly that the petitioners are the owner of the land in question and the Tehsildar Mahasamund has no such power to draw such a proceeding. The notices were issued unto 4 the petitioners. On the same date itself, the proceeding were drawn by the court of learned Tehsildar Mahasamund in Revenue Case No. 202112120600051/B-121/2021-22 (Jagdish Prasad Agrawal V/s.Neeraj Jain & Another). Thereafter, the petitioners have filed a writ petition as W.P.(C) No. 2476/2022, before this Hon'ble Court and on 14.06.2022, after hearing the respondent No.2 herein/ complainant, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an interim order by staying the complete proceeding in Revenue Case No. 202112120600051/B-121/2021-22,(Jagdish Prasad Agrawal V/s.Neeraj Jain & Another). 4. Mr. Khan also submitted that the respondent No.2/Complainant has also filed a Civil Suit No. 27-A/2009 (Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Vs. Chhedilal Nishad & Others) and on 26.04.2016, the Court of Learned 2nd Civil Judge Class-I Mahasamund has dismissed the suit and the Petitioners have purchased the land from the defendants in the above civil suit. On 08/03/2022, respondent No. 2/Complainant has also filed another Civil Suit No. S-07 (A)/2022(Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Vs. Santosh Kumar Nishad & Others). This time the petitioners were also arrayed as party defendants No. 4 & 5 and on 28.06.2022, the respondent No.2/complainant has moved an application for withdrawal before the Court of Learned 2nd Civil Judge Class-II Mahasamund. He further contended that even the petitioners were not there in the scene of crime on that day, i.e. 15.11.2022, but then also, the F.I.R. (Annexure P-1) is lodged by respondent No. 2 herein. The 5 petitioners have also filed a complaint U/s. 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mahasamund against the respondent No.2/complainant on 01.11.2022 and on the same date, the Court of Learned CJM Mahasamund has passed an order by calling the report from the police station, Mahasamund. He contended that the complainant/ respondent No.2 has already participated in the proceedings of civil suit and High Court proceeding, so technically, no offence is made out against the petitioners and out of that vengeance, a false and fabricated FIR has been 15.11.2022 against the petitioners and 02 others, but till charge-sheet has not been submitted and the petitioners are languishing / calling by the police again and again. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that during pendency of the civil proceedings the musclemen of the petitioners committed marpeet with the son of the respondent No.2 as a result of which he sustained injuries. Thereafter, the proceedings under Section 116(3) Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioners wherein the petitioner No.1 submit bond for maintaining good behaviour for two years before the Executive Magistrate, however, he failed to do so and also tried to dispossess the respondent No.2 from the subject land. Under the circumstances, he would submit that during pendecy of civil dispute if any party committed such act which is punishable under law, then the civil and criminal action shall run simultaneously. He 6 would pray for dismissal of the present Cr.M.P. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the impugned FIR; and the materials available on record. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case; particularly considering the fact that the complainant is trying to give the colour of criminal nature to a civil dispute between the parties as the matter is travelled from the competent Civil Court to this Court wherein, the second appeal is pending consideration; and further considering the contents of the FIR, it is quite vivid that, prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioners and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners with malafide intention only to take personal vengeance against the petitioners, thus, the initiation of criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 8. Considering overall the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner has made out strong case for quashing of FIR. Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 508/2022 registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC at Police Station Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice