1 2025:CGHC:13585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 114 of 2023 Naresh Kumar Dhiwar S/o Shri Silhau Ram Dhiwar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Baroda, Police Station Vidhaan Sabha, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Vidhaan Sabha, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhagan Lal Verma S/o Late Awadhram Verma Aged About 48 Years R/o Premnagar Mova, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 /State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.24 10:21:17 +0530 2 2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer :- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for records pertaining to case of petitioner from the respondents concerned and after hearing the parties in the matter, quashing FIR No. 488/2022 dated 12.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) registered on complaint of respondent No.2 by respondent no.1 in the peculiar factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant i.e. respondent No.2 lodged an FIR against the petitioner alleging that he and his brother Jhabbu Ram Verma are in joint possession of their ancestral land situated at village Barouda, P.H. No. 23, R.N.M. Dharsiva 1, Tahsil & District – Raipur bearing Khasra No. 54/7, Rakba 0.0162 hectare, which is an agricultural land. The The complainant i.e. respondent No. 2 has stated in his FIR that, the petitioner who is a land broker in connivance with one Smt. Anuradha Verma wife of Late Anuj Ram Verma resident of Bazar Chowk Mohandi -1, District - Raipur [CG] for sale of the land in question made a deal of Rs. 37,70,000/- with him and his brother and they were given Rs.51,000/- in advance and petitioner assured that remaining amount would be given at the time of execution of sale-deed of the said land and an agreement was executed in this regard. The said agreement was signed by the petitioner as a witness and on 11.10.2019, against the deal, the 3 petitioner in a fraudulent manner got the sale-deed executed & registered showing less amount than the amount which was fixed in deal/agreement. The complainant i.e. respondent No. 2 has alleged that they were given Cheque No. 453432 of State Bank of India amounting Rs. 4,77,000/- but the said cheque was taken back by the petitioner saying that it is torn and will not work. Further, also Anuradha Verma who had given Cheque No. 000226 of Rs. 10,00,000/- of ICICI Bank Raipur & Cheque No. 000267 of Rs. 12,37,000/- were made stopped by the concerned bank and remaining amount of Rs. 14,82,000/- which had to be given in cash was rot provided by the petitioner and thus the petitioner along with co-accused Anuradha Verma committed fraud with them of Rs. 37,19,000/- and got the land registered in their favour. Based on the said written complaint, impugned FIR has been registered under Crime No. 488/2022 on 12.11.2022 against the petitioner along with co-accused Anuradha Verma for offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that that totally a false and fictitious case has been registered against the present applicant. The allegations in the FIR is that the sale deed which was executed by one Jhabbu Ram Verma in favour of one Anuradha Verma in the year 2019, in which, present petitioner was merely a witness. During the lifetime of Jhabbu Ram Verma, no report was lodged by him and it appears that after the death of 4 Jhabbu Ram Verma, his brother, who is also a witness to the same sale deed, has lodged FIR against the present petitioner and other co- accused alleging that the amount of sale deed was not paid and less amount was paid showing the sale deed executed in lesser amount than actual price of the property. He further submits that even assuming for a moment that present petitioner has cheated the seller Jhabhu Ram Verma, being a witness, when the complainant / objector, who happens to be the another witness in the same sale deed, has not been made an accused. He further submits that the alleged sale deed was executed in the 2019 and after lapse of three years, the FIR was lodged apparently which is purely an abuse of law because the present petitioner, being a witness of the sale deed, pressure has been created to get the sale deed canceled. By the flux of time, value of the property increased and therefore, the complainant has lodged report whereas actual owner during his lifetime, did not raise any objection. It is further submitted that alleged dispute pertains to civil nature and the petitioner has already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 10682 of 2022 vide order dated 21.04.2023. The present case comes within the purview of abuse of process of Court and abuse of process of law and also in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right, therefore, is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and 5 submits that prima facie offence under Section 420, 34 of IPC has been probed against the petitioner and the matter is under investigation and the statements of witnesses are yet to be recorded for complete investigation in order to file final report / challan, as such, no interference is warranted at this stage. 6. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 / complaint opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is the brother of original seller Jagguram Verma, who has executed sale deed dated 11.10.2019 in favour of one Smt. Anuradha Verma (co-accused). He further submits that petitioner being a broker along with co- accused Smt. Anuradha Verma made a deal for purchasing the land in question from his bother late Jhabburam Verma on 22.07.2019 for Rs. 37,70,000/- and paid Rs. 51,000/-. The agreement was prepared by paying the earnest money. On 11.10.2019, a deed was fraudulently prepared by showing a price contrary to the agreed deal and a State Bank of India cheque No. 453432 of Rs. 4,77,000/- was given and the registry was done in the registration office of Raipur after adjusting the earnest money. After the registry, taking advantage of Jhabburam Verma being illiterate, accused Naresh Dhiwar asked for his cheque back as it was torn and will not be accepted and by giving two cheques given by accused Anuradha Verma, cheque number 000266 of ICICI Bank Raipur for amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and cheque number 000267 for amount of Rs. 12,27,000/-, the bank stopped 6 the payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 14,82,000/-. Accused Anuradha Verma and Naresh Dhiwar were asked to pay in cash but that amount was also not given. In the meantime Jhabbu Ram Verma died. In this way, accused Anuradha Verma and Naresh Dhiwar deceitfully took advantage of Jhabbu Ram Verma being illiterate and got the registry done and without paying the amount and thus committed fraud. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 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 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. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, 7 that the proceedings relating to cognizable ofences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 10. From perusal of the contents of the FIR, it transpires that petitioner being a broker along with co-accused Smt. Anuradha Verma made a deal for purchasing the land in question from one Jhabburam Verma on 22.07.2019 for Rs. 37,70,000/- and paid Rs.51,000/-. The agreement was prepared by paying the earnest money. On 11.10.2019, a deed was fraudulently prepared by showing a price contrary to the agreed deal and a State Bank of India cheque No. 453432 of Rs. 4,77,000/- was given and the registry was done in the registration office of Raipur after adjusting the earnest money. After the registry, accused Naresh Dhiwar asked for his cheque back as it was torn by saying that it will not be accepted and by giving two cheques given by co- accused Anuradha Verma, cheque number 000266 of ICICI Bank 8 Raipur for amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and cheque number 000267 for amount of Rs. 12,27,000/-, the bank stopped the payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 14,82,000/-. Accused Anuradha Verma and Naresh Dhiwar were asked to pay in cash but that amount was also not given. In the meantime Jhabbu Ram Verma died. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner. Further, in light of what has been said by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) Bhajanlal (supra) and Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), there appears to be no good ground for quashing of the impugned FIR. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra