1 CRMP No.13 of 2025 2025:CGHC:45819-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 13 of 2025 1 - Kailash Chand Godwani S/o Late Shri Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani Aged About 56 Years R/o Sindi Colony Patankar Colony Durg Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) (Accused) 2 - Smt. Kaushilya Panjwani D/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani W/o Shekhar Panjwani Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Shiv Shoes Axis Bank Devliroad Dayal Nagar Wardha Takshila Budh Vihar Maharashtra 442001 3 - Smt. Sadhna Lalwani D/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani W/o Harish Lalwani Aged About 50 Years R/o Opposite Barah Kholi Sindhi Colony Murtijapur Maharashtra 444107 4 - Vinod Godwani S/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani Aged About 42 Years R/o Sindi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.) 5 - Ajay Kumar Godwani S/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani Aged About 43 Years R/o Sindi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.) 6 - Shankarlal Godwani S/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani Aged About 47 Years R/o Sindi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Usha Godwani W/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas @ Kalyandas Godwani Aged About 73 Years R/o Shadaninagar Sindhi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.10 10:21:20 +0530 2 CRMP No.13 of 2025 8 - Pawan Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas @ Kalyandas Godwani Aged About 58 Years R/o Shadaninagar Sindhi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.) 9 - Bhawan Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas @ Kalyandas Godwani Aged About 56 Years R/o Gurunanank Nagar Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.) 10 - Sanjay Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas @ Kalyandas Godwani Aged About 54 Years R/o Shadaninagar Sindhi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.) 11 - Roshan Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas @ Kalyandas Godwani Aged About 52 Years R/o Shadaninagar Sindhi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho P.S Kotwali Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Krishna Lekhwani W/o Shrichand Lekwani Aged About 58 Years R/o Sindi Colony Knwar Nagar Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent(s) No. 02 : Shri Manoj Parajpe, Senior Advocate along with P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09/09/2025 3 CRMP No.13 of 2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 486/2024 registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420,467, 468 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Kotwali Durg Dist. Durg C.G. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that an F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 against the petitioners alleging therein that the subject land bearing Kh. No. 140 area 0.077 Hec. situated at Vill-Poolgaon, Ph. No. 18/25, R.N. Circle Durg. Tah. & Dist-Durg (C.G.), has been given to her by her cousin Late Shri Bhajanmal and Late Shri Kallumal vide Will dated 30.03.2008 and on the same date one power of attorney was executed by them in favour of her husband Shrichand Lekhwani. The petitioners were aware about the said fact even thereafter on 02.12.2022, the petitioner No.1 has made false affidavit and on the basis of the same the petitioners have obtained the second copy of Rin Pustika from the competent revenue authority and the petitioners have very well aware about the fact that after execution of will and registered power of attorney the original document of the land and the original Rin Pustika were also handed over to the complainant but suppressing the said fact with intention to commit cheating with the complainant/ respondent No.2 by using false affidavit the petitioners have mutated their name in the revenue records and they have also obtained the second copy of the Rin Pustika. 4 CRMP No.13 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. He further submits that the petitioners are legal representative of Bhajanmal and Kallumal and after their death, the name of the petitioners have been mutated in the revenue records following due process. He further submits that appeal was also filed by the complainant/ respondent No.2 against the mutation of names but the same was dismissed on the ground that her claim is based upon will dated 30.03.2008 and only Civil Court has jurisdiction to determine the genuineness of will. Thereagainst, the respondent No.2 approached the Board of Revenue, wherein she got interim protection and against the said order, the petitioners herein approached this Court in WPC No.5917/2024 wherein this Court disposed of the petition by order dated 3.12.2024 and set aside the order dated 27.8.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue and also stayed the further proceeding pending before it and the parties were directed to file appropriate civil suit before the competent civil Court to resolve title dispute persist between them. He further submits that the allegation against obtaining the second copy of Rin Pustika is concerned, the petitioners were under the impression that the same was lost and further submits that matter is a civil dispute and is being given criminal colour. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the 5 CRMP No.13 of 2025 FIR discloses a clear cognizable offence and is supported by a sequence of events involving criminal intimidation, including false affidavit before the authorities and obtaining second copy of rin pustika by playing fraud. Learned counsel for the State also support the submission of the respondent No.2 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the impugned FIR; and the materials available on record. 6. Bare perusal of the material available on record, it is manifest that in respect of the subject land, the parties are litigating since a long and even for mutation also the respondent No.2 approached the SDO (R) and the Commissioner wherein she could not succeed and thereafter she approached the Board of Revenue wherein interim protection was granted and against which the petitioner approached this Court and this Court set-aside the order dated 27.8.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue and also stayed the further proceeding pending before it and the parties were directed to file appropriate civil suit before the competent civil Court to resolve title dispute persist between them. From the aforesaid sequence of events, in our considered opinion the matter appears to be of civil nature, however, by giving the colour of criminality the complainant has lodged the report against the petitioners. 7. Recently, the Apex Court, in Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. {Cr.A. No. 2963/2025 : 2025 INSC 869}, observed as under: 6 CRMP No.13 of 2025 “10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality. 11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of “Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that this very decision was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent. We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying 7 CRMP No.13 of 2025 that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016. xxx xxx xxx 13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the fact that the petitioners and complainant are relative and they are litigating since a long for the ancestral property and the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended against the petitioners with malafide intention, therefore, 8 CRMP No.13 of 2025 initiation of criminal proceeding is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. Thus, we are of the view that this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and quash the FIR dated 27.09.2024 bearing Crime No.486/2024 filed by the respondent No.2 at Police Station Durg- Kotwali, Dist-Durg C.G. for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of IPC. 9. Resultantly, the petition stand allowed. However, the respondent No.2 may take recourse to civil proceedings for redressal of the grievances, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Sourabh