1 2025:CGHC:51281-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3131 of 2025 Vijay Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Lekhram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Ekta Colony, Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Its Commissioner, Vikas Bhawan, Neharu Chowk, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.10.15 18:46:45 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quashed the First Information Report bearing No. 1293 of 2025 (Annexure P/1), registered at Police Station Sarkanda on dated 17.09.2025 under Section 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS, 2023 against the present petitioner namely Vijay Kumar Sahu in the interest of justice. 2. That, any other relief(s) which the Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners;” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier filed a case bearing CRMP No. 3072 of 2025 (Vijay Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) before this Court. The said matter was listed for hearing on 09.10.2025, and after due consideration, this Court dismissed/disposed of the said petition with liberty to file a fresh one. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner purchased a portion of land bearing Khasra No. 559/2/थ, admeasuring 3.458 sq. meters, from Smt. Rajkumari Yadav through a registered sale deed dated 15.05.2012. The said vendor had earlier purchased the same land from one Dhan Singh via a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1990. Subsequent to the purchase, the land was duly mutated in the name of the petitioner, and his name was entered in the 3 Rin Pustika as Bhumiswami. The petitioner, an employee of the Forest Department, presently holds the post of Ranger and is posted at Lormi, District Mungeli. His family presently resides in a rented house at Sarkanda, Bilaspur. With the intention of constructing his own house, the petitioner initiated the process for approval of the building map from the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner met one Suresh Kumar Sharma, then Building Officer of the Municipal Corporation, and submitted the necessary documents, including the sale deed, B-1, Khasra, land use certificate, and other relevant papers. The Building Officer, after receiving these, informed the petitioner telephonically that he should route the application through one Narendra Kurre (Empanelled Engineer). Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Bilaspur, for formal diversion of land Khasra No. 559/2/थ, though the land had already been declared for residential use by the Town and Country Planning Department. The said Department, vide letter dated 23.06.2022, informed the Municipal Corporation that lands bearing Khasra Nos. 559/1 and 559/2 were earmarked for residential use as per the Bilaspur Development Scheme. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Municipal Corporation thereafter deputed the Revenue Inspector for site inspection. The Inspector directed the petitioner to deposit property tax for the years 2019 to 2025, which the petitioner duly paid on 4 30.09.2024. Subsequently, the Corporation issued a notice directing him to deposit development charges of Rs. 3,72,573/- on 11.10.2024, which the petitioner paid on 16.06.2025. Following the payment, the Municipal Corporation approved the building map on 20.06.2025. Meanwhile, the SDO, vide order dated 12.08.2024, accepted the petitioner’s application and called for a report regarding land use determination. The Revenue Inspector, in his report, confirmed that the land belonging to the petitioner had already been diverted for residential purposes. However, all of a sudden, by order dated 08.09.2025, the Municipal Corporation cancelled the approved building map without issuing any prior notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, solely on the ground that the land was classified as “grass land.” The petitioner later came to know through a newspaper report that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, had lodged an FIR dated 17.09.2025, alleging that the petitioner had obtained map approval using incorrect documents, based on the report of the SDO. The FIR was registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s land is situated at Khamtarai, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, and that other parts of the same Khasra land have been bifurcated and occupied by several owners who, after obtaining permissions from the competent authorities, have constructed and been residing in their houses for the past 40–50 years. A Google map and photographs showing existing constructions over adjoining portions of 5 the said land are annexed as Annexure P/15. Those parcels have also been diverted for residential use. He also contended that the petitioner came to know about a complaint lodged by one Neeraj Patel against the then Building Officer, alleging that he, in collusion with certain architects, had sanctioned several building maps without proper documentation. Acting upon the complaint, the Additional Collector directed initiation of proceedings against the Building Officer and the architect concerned. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, assigned the inquiry to the Additional Commissioner, who submitted a report clearly stating that after collection of building permission fees, the architect Narendra Kurre had submitted the hard copies of documents, and that the petitioner neither submitted any application or affidavit nor signed any such documents. The petitioner had merely handed over some papers to the Building Officer, Suresh Kumar Sharma. Subsequently, media reports highlighted irregularities in building map approvals within Bilaspur city, including the Khamtarai and Sarkanda areas. On the basis of these reports, the Collector directed initiation of inquiry against the Building Officer and the concerned architect. However, instead of proceeding against those officials, and without issuing any notice or affording the petitioner a hearing, the Municipal Corporation arbitrarily cancelled the petitioner’s sanctioned map on the ground that the land was “grass land.” Thereafter, the Commissioner lodged the FIR alleging submission of forged documents through the architect. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 6 Commissioner’s actions were intended solely to shield erring officials and to mitigate the impact of adverse media coverage. The entire action is thus malafide, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, particularly when the inquiry report of the Additional Commissioner and the documents on record reveal that no offence under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023 is made out. The dispute, if any, is purely civil and revenue in nature. Hence, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal registration of the FIR, has approached this Court. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 oppose the submissions of the petitioner and submit that once an FIR disclosing cognizable offences has been registered, it must be investigated in accordance with law and taken to its logical conclusion. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the impugned FIR. 11. The jurisdiction to quash an FIR, complaint, or charge-sheet is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. Ordinarily, Courts do not interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. An FIR may be quashed only where, even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose any offence. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that quashing is permissible only in rare circumstances—where allegations are frivolous, inherently improbable, or actuated by mala fides. Similar 7 views were expressed in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059; Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259; and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. The Court in Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, emphasized that the Court cannot examine the veracity of allegations at the threshold. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540, it was reiterated that the Court should not assess the probabilities of prosecution or infer mala fides at the stage of quashing. 12. Applying these principles, the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Issues involving factual disputes, appreciation of evidence, or determination of credibility fall outside the scope of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Based on the material on record, it cannot be conclusively held that the proceedings are manifestly mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive. The FIR can be quashed only in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments. 13. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that it pertains to registration of an offence against Vijay Kumar Sahu, son of Late Lekhram Sahu, for allegedly submitting a forged diversion certificate to obtain a building construction permit from the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. The FIR states that the petitioner had submitted an online proposal bearing No. 12007 dated 06.10.2024 seeking building permission over land situated 8 at village Khamtarai, Khasra No. 559/2/थ/1, admeasuring 0.0320 hectare. Upon verification, it was found that the diversion certificate attached to the application pertained to Khasra No. 417/20, area 0.032 hectare, which was not recorded in the petitioner’s name. The said certificate was found to be forged and fabricated. Pursuant to the Commissioner’s directions, the Sub-Engineer, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, appeared before Police Station Sarkanda on 17.09.2025 and submitted a written report along with supporting documents, seeking registration of the offence. The FIR further narrates that, although building permission had been granted on 20.06.2025, subsequent verification revealed that the permission was obtained on the basis of forged documents. The SDO (Revenue), Bilaspur, vide report dated 02.09.2025, confirmed that the petitioner had purchased 3492.5 sq. ft. from Khasra No. 559/2/थ, whereas the said land remained recorded as grass land in settlement records. Moreover, his application for diversion, filed on 16.07.2024, had been dismissed for non-appearance and non- submission of requisite documents. It was, therefore, concluded that the diversion certificate was forged. Based on this, the Commissioner ordered registration of the FIR. 14. It is a settled principle that once an FIR discloses cognizable offences, investigation must proceed in accordance with law, and the High Court would not ordinarily exercise its inherent powers to stifle such investigation at its inception. Disputed questions of fact—such as authenticity of documents or bona fides of the parties—require proper investigation and appreciation of evidence at the trial stage. 9 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan