1 2025:CGHC:1679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 99 of 2025 Gendprasad Tiwari S/o Vedprakash Tiwari Aged About 87 Years R/o Village Bamhandih, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Superintendent Of Police, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 4 - Rajendra Sharma S/o Tarachand Sharma R/o Village Bamhandih, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.), (Ex-Sarpanch, Village Bamhandih, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/01/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2 2. Learned State Counsel accepts advanced copy of the memo of petition. 3. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, challenging the arbitrary act of the respondent/police authority who has not considered the complaint made by the petitioner and issued the notice under Section 174 of the BNSS, 2023 and refused to entertain the same and directed the petitioner to approach before the Civil Court. 4. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the village Bamhandih, District Mahasamund (C.G) and respondent No.4 is an Ex-Sarpanch of the Village Bamhandih, District Mahasamaund who remained Sarpanch during the year 2011. On 08- 04-2024, the petitioner made a complaint before the Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G) against respondent No.4 alleging therein that the during the period of being Sarpanch, respondent No.4 had misused his powers and illegally grabbed the precious land of the village bearing Khasra No.148/12 which is a Government land situated near the National Highway No.353. The same has been illegally possessed and is used by respondent No 4 for his personal use. He further alleged that on 29-11-20211, a meeting was conducted in the Gram-Sabha where the Panchs of the village along with Sarpanch i.e. respondent No.4 and Secretary of the of the gram sabha was also present and the Secretary was granted 3 no-objection certificate in favor of the respondent No.4 with regards to the above mentioned land. From the bare perusal of the minutes of the meeting, it can clearly be seen that there is gross illegality conducted by the persons involved in the meeting and all the act was done just to provide personal benefit to respondent No.4 which is illegal and amounts to criminal activity. The petitioner also submitted all the relevant documents before the police authority with regards to the land and the illegality conducted by the respondent No.4. Considering the severity and issue involved in the matter, the police of police station Komakhan conducted the preliminary investigation in which they perused the evidences and took statements of the villagers. 5. During the course of investigation, the police officer got transferred from the police station and in his place some other officer took charge, but he did not took proper interest in the matter and without proper investigation and conclusion submitted his closure report. 6. Based on the investigation report, the police authority issued the notice under Section 174 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahinta, 2023 on 07- 08-2024 and directed the petitioner to go before the Court. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the act committed by the police authority for not entertaining the complaint made by the petitioner and non- registration of FIR is arbitrary and illegal. He further contended that the petitioner has made specific allegation against the 4 respondent No.4 with regards to commitment of irregularity and forgery for obtaining the precious part of the land and that too during the period of being Sarpanch of the village which itself is a constitutional post, which was misused by the respondent No.4 for his benefit which falls under the provision of Sections 335, 336 and 340 of Bhartiya Nyay Sahinta, 2023 and various other provisions of the law, but instead of taking and action against respondent No.4, the police authority has simply denied to entertain the same and issued section 174 BNSS to the petitioner. He further contended that from the bare perusal of the no-objection certificate, it is crystal clear that it has been manipulated by the respondent No.4 with the help of Secretary and other Panchayat persons wherein the Secretary has signed the certificate on 16-11-2011 and Sarpanch has signed the certificate on 16-12-2011 which clearly shows the ill-intention and misused of their posts for their own benefit. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the police authority to take cognizance on the complaint made by the petitioner and to take appropriate action against respondent No.4 in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 8. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5 10. Considering the facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition and submission of learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the record, I have found that the petitioner has made complaint before the Police Station- Komakhan, District Mahasamund against respondent No.4 (Ex. Sarpanch, Rajendra Sharma) and Police Station Komakhan registered the case under Section 134 of the BNSS and directed the complainant to file complaint case before the competent Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has right to file application under Section 175(3) of BNSS before the trial Court and also has right to file complaint case under Section 223 of BNSS, 2023, therefore, the application filed under Section 528 of BNSS is not maintainable in the eyes of law. 11. Accordingly, the present CrMP being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. However, petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the competent Court. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant