1 2025:CGHC:54068-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3339 of 2025 1 - Smt. Jeera Nishad W/o Bhola Ram Nishad Aged About 56 Years R/o Jai Hind Chowk, Ram Nagar, Gudhiyari, Police Station Gudhiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhola Ram Nishad S/o Late Dhaniram Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Jai Hind Chowk, Ram Nagar, Gudhiyari, Police Station Gudhiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge Of Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Akhilendra Pratap Singh S/o Kanhaiya Lal Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Machhli Talab Ward No. 15 Near Shitla Para, Gudhiyari Police Station Gudhiyari District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.11.2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “1. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.07 10:40:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition; and 2. Kindly direct quashment of the FIR No. 553 of 2025 registered at Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur against the petitioners under section 318(4), 316(2), 3(5) of BNS as well as the entire proceedings arising out of the said FIR. 3. Pass such other order and issue such other direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner No.2 is the husband of petitioner No.1; and the petitioner No. 1 was the Bhumiswami of Khasra No. 200/5 area 0.202 Hectare situated at Village Fundhar, P.H.No. 68, R.I.C.-Devpuri, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) (hereinafter referred as 'the land'). The complainant/Respondent No.2 is a property dealer who buys and sells property. In the year 2019, the petitioner No.2-under the authority of Power of Attorney given by the Petitioner No.1, and Bhumiswamis of their respective lands, collectively entered into an agreement to sell the Total Khasra (land) 06, Total Land 1.78 Hectare. The petitioners and other Bhumiswamis who entered into the agreement collectively received advance from the complainant/R2 at the time of the agreement. The petitioners received two cheques of Rs.4 lakhs each (total 8 lakhs) in advance at the time of the agreement which the petitioners deposited in the account of their daughter and son in 3 law. The said agreement unequivocally stipulated that the complainant/R2 had to pay the entire sale consideration--money before the registration [of sale deed] and the Complainant/R2 had to mandatorily get the registration done within three months from the agreement. The Complainant/R2 could not pay the entire amount within the stipulated time therefore-out of good faith, the petitioners and other Bhumiswamis made started requesting the Complainant/R2 to pay the entire sale consideration and get the registration of sale deed done as soon as possible. Despite repeated requests and reminders, the complainant/R2 could not manage to pay the sale consideration until the year 2024, therefore, the petitioners sold the land- Khasra No. 200/5 Area 0.202 Hectare to a person named Ritesh Kumar who paid the petitioners entire sale consideration and got the sale deed registered and also came into possession of the land. After when the petitioners sold their land to the Ritesh Kumar, some unknown persons started to create obstruction upon the way to the land therefore the petitioners made a written complaint to the officer In charge of Police Station Telibandha-against unknown persons and requested to take necessary action. A similar complaint was also made to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur. On 29-08-2025, the complainant/R2 lodged written complaint in the police Station Telibandha alleging on 07-09-2019, the petitioners had entered into an agreement to sell their Land-Khasra No. 200/5 Area 4 0.202 Hectare at the rate of Rupees 2.75 Crore per Acre and had obtained total 40 Lakhs in Advance (Rupees 36 Lakh In Cash and 4 Lakh through check) but instead of selling the said land to the complainant/R2, the petitioners had sold the land to some other person named Ritesh Kumar and thus the petitioners had cheated the complainant/R2 and swindled Rupees 40 Lakh from the complainant/R2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the dispute is purely civil in nature. He submits that the complainant/respondent No.2 himself has failed to perform his part of the agreement, therefore, the complainant/respondent No.2 instead of filing a suit for specific performance, has lodged a complaint, which is an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel further submits that the agreement was done in the year 2019 and the agreement is clearly about a civil transaction and the FIR has been lodged in the year 2025, without conducting any inquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioners have cheated the complainant/respondent No.2 and sold the subject land to some other person. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 6. It is noteworthy to mention here that the agreement which has been executed between the petitioners and respondent No. 5 2/complainant in respect of the property in question, on the basis of a power of attorney, has not been annexed with the petition. 7. Even otherwise, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioners have cheated the complainant/respondent No.2 by accepting Rs.4 lac in advance and sold the subject land to some other person, this Court finds that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation. The plea of the petitioners that the dispute is purely civil in nature cannot be accepted & examined, at this stage, as the materials on record indicate elements of deception and dishonest intention. Hence, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to allow the petition. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/Amardeep