1 2025:CGHC:308-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 507 of 2024 1 - Rajkishor Sawaiya S/o Late Shri Jagannath Prasad Aged About 51 Years Resident Of Sharda Vihar Colony, Uslapur, Bilaspur Working Place Patwari Halka No. 51, Pondi (Bharani) Revenue Circle Ganiyari, Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director National Information Centre, (Chhattisgarh State Centre), Revenue, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Tahsildar Tahsil Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 8 - The Station House Officer Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 9 - Tahsildar Tahsil Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 10 - Shradha Singh Naib Tahsildar, Up-Tahsil Ganiyari, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R. No. 923/2024 dated 04.12.2024 registered at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur with the following prayer: "That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned FIR No. 923/2024 dated 04.12.2024 registered by the police station Sakri District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh for offence punishable under Section 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, in respect of the case of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted." 3. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings made in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a Patwari who joined at Patwari Halka No. 51, Pondi (Bharani), Revenue Circle Ganiyari, Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Under the direction of Higher Authorities, he was assigned the work of "Girdawali" for the purpose of selling the paddy in the society and while performing his work, he came to know that some big area of land are recorded in the name of unknown persons who does not belongs to village Pondi and he made complaint before the Higher Authorities. In spite of taking action against the such beneficiaries, an F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner alleging in it that the petitioner has uploaded 3 revenue record without providing ID by the Higher Authority to obtain illegal benefit from it. The F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 923/2024 has been registered on 04.12.2024 at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur for the offence under Section 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has taken charge on 07.03.2024 at Patwari Halka No. 51 of village Pondi (Bharani) Tehsil Sakri District Bilaspur. While performing work of Girdawari he came to know about suspicious entries in the Bhuiyan Portal online revenue records, with respect to the ownership/mutation of various khasra numbers to various persons who are in the resident of the village. The said Bhuiyan Portal was updated on 25.02.2024 whereas the present petitioner had joined on 07.03.2024. There is no option in the portal at Patwari can make entry without obtaining proper ID from the Tehsildar/SDO. The Patwari cannot deleted or amended the online revenue record and by default his digital signature has been put in the suspicious revenue records for which without their being any proper inquiry the F.I.R. has been lodged by the revenue authorities. In order to save the Higher Authorities the petitioner has been made accused in the F.I.R. and he has not committed any offence, therefore, the F.I.R. of Crime No. 923/2024 registered at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur may be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that under the instruction of the SDO (Revenue), Takhtpur, the Tahsildar Ganiyari has inquired the matter about bogus entries in Bhuiyan Portal which is the online revenue record and after finding the bogus entries in the said Bhuiyan Portal in the name of various persons of various lands by the petitioner on his own digital signature and also made entry of the crops, the F.I.R. has been registered after due inquiry of the Tahsildar. From the F.I.R. it prima facie appears that the offence has been committed by the petitioner 4 and after registration of the F.I.R. the matter is under investigation and investigation is in initial stage. Since the F.I.R. has been registered on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar, it cannot be said that there is no allegation against the petitioner with respect to the alleged offence, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the copy of the F.I.R. it clearly reveals that the F.I.R. has been registered on the basis of inquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar and the F.I.R. has been lodged by Nayab Tehsildar, Sub Tahsil Ganiyari. From the F.I.R. it prima facie appears that the certain bogus entries alleged to have been made in the Bhuiyan online Portal of the revenue record. By the digital signature of the present petitioner. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not or there would be any sufficient material for filing of charge-sheet or not would only be decided after completion of the investigation and at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence and the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. 8. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the 5 Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 9. In view of the above, we are not satisfied with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. and the writ petition does not have any merit and liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek the appropriate remedy against the consequence of registration of the F.I.R. in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok