1 2025:CGHC:54832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3387 of 2025 Dinesh Kumar Chauhan S/o Late Ramkumar Singh Chauhan, Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Near Shitla Mandir, Saja, Tahsil And Ps Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Saja, Tahsil And Ps Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Annapurna W/o Dimbippa Chauhan, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Musuwadih, Ps And Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Dimbippa Chauhan, S/o Ramkumar Chauhan, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Musuwadih, Ps And Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) 2 6 - Aditya Singh S/o Dimbippa Singh, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Musuwadih, Ps And Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying for the following relief(s): (I) To kindly direct the Judicial Magistrate Senior Grade, Saja, District Bemetara to act in accordance with law and direct the Respondent no. 3 to immediately initiate investigation by registration of FIR against the respondent no. 4 to 6 for the offences mentioned in the complaints dated 29.09.2025, 10.10.2025, 13.10.2025 and 23.10.2025. (ii) To kindly direct the respondent no. 1 to grant appropriate police protection to the applicant and his family from coercive action/inaction of the respondent no. 2 to 6. (iii) Any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be made in the interest of justice. 3 3. Being aggrieved with the inaction, apathy and grave miscarriage of justice being caused to the applicant by the non-applicants who are forcefully and without following due process of law throwing the applicant out from his ancestral residential house by using coercive measures and demolition of boundary wall and locking the house of the applicant. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.01.2024, the applicant along with his brothers instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and permanent injunction to the effect that the land in question bearing Khasra No.1688 admeasuring 0.03 hectare and Khasra No.1689, admeasuring 0.003 hectare situated at Village Saja, District Bemetara has fallen in their share by virtue of the family partition effected on 06.02.2011. The alleged land was purchased by their father, namely, Ram Kumar Singh Chouhan under the registered deed of sale dated 15.01.1996 in the name of non-applicant no.5 Dimbippa, as he was the elder son and after its execution, the said non-applicant i.e. Dimbippa has, however, executed a registered deed of gift in favour of his wife, namely, Smt. Annapurna, i.e. the non-applicant No.4 herein on 13.10.2022 and since, she is trying to mortgage the same in order to obtain the loan amount from the bank, therefore, they have been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature, along with an application for grant of temporary injunction as required under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, restraining the non-applicants from mortgaging the land in question. The application for temporary injunction was 4 rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 24/07/2024. The aforesaid Civil Suit vide CS No. 3A/2024 is still pending consideration. On 24/09/2025 the wife of the applicant suffered serious injuries due to vehicular accident and the applicant was forced to leave his residential house built on the suit property and get his wife hospitalized at Raipur. taking undue advantage of the hospitalization of the wife of the applicant and the rejection of temporary injunction application the Respondents no.4 to 6 have demolished the boundary wall standing on the aforesaid suit land and also damaged the wall of the residential house off the applicant on 26/09/2025 in order to secure the possession of the house forcefully. Copies of photographs of the demolished boundary wall and house wall are annexed as ANNEXURE A/1. 5. That the applicant approached the Police Station Saja and complained about the forceful trespass by the non-applicants no.4 to 6. The police station Saja did not register the First Information Report and issued the NCR/memo dated 26/09/2025 under Section 174 BNSS which is annexed as ANNEXURE A/2. The applicant approached the SDO (Police) and the Superintendent of Police Bemetara on 29/09/2025 and requested for direction for registration of FIR against the non-applicants no.4 to 6 for criminal trespass and damage and theft of private property. No action was taken against the private respondents by the police which resulted in recurrence of criminal trespass and life threatening incident on 09/10/2025 when the non-applicants no.4 to 6 forcefully entered 5 inside the house of the applicant and threw him out along with his mother. The applicant approached the SP, Bemetara again and requested for protection of property and action against the non- applicants on 10/10/2025. A copy of the complaint dated 10/10/2025 is annexed as ANNEXURE A/4. On 11/10/2025 the non-applicants no.4 to 6 along with other minions again forcefully entered inside the residential premises of the applicant and destroyed valuable property including CCTV camera, water faucet and plants. The applicant again made a complaint to the SP, Bemetara on 13/10/2025 (ANNEXURE A/5) but no action has been taken till date. The Petitioner also approached the SDO (POLICE) Saja and made a complaint but of no avail. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents no. 1 to 3 are bound to protect the law and punish the persons who take law into their hands by suitable investigaton into the complaint. The complaints of the applicant cannot be thrown by the non-applicants no. 1 to 3 merely on the ground of civil litigation. The complaint of the applicant clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence. The police is bound to register FIR. He further submits that a civil suit is pending before the court below. 7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the contention made by the counsel for the petitioner. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that present is a case of dispute relating to ancestral property between the parties, also considering the fact that the petitioner has already filed a complaint case before the Trial Court therefore, it would be appropriate to dispose off this petition with a direction to the concerned court to decide the pending complaint case expeditiously as soon as possible after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the respondents on its own merits without prejudice to the order of this Court. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima