1 2025:CGHC:49763-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2741 of 2025 1 - Purshottam Das Verma S/o Late Durga Prasad Verma, Aged About 67 Years R/o Polsaipara, Present Address Vidyut Nagar Borsi, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Yash Verma S/o Purshottam Das Verma, Aged About 27 Years R/o Polsaipara, Present Address Vidyut Nagar Borsi, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Prateek Verma S/o Purshottam Das Verma, Aged About 33 Years R/o Polsaipara, Present Address Vidyut Nagar Borsi, District Durg (C.G.) -Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pulgaon, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sonam Verma W/o Vinay Verma, Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 27, Mahalaxmi Printing Press Wali Gali, Polsai Para Durg, Tah And District Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2: Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate AND CRMP No. 2078 of 2025 1 - Abhishek Verma S/o Dhannalal Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o Polsai Para, Mahalaxmi Printing Press Gali, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.10.07 18:23:45 +0530 2 2 - Nitin Verma S/o Dhannalal Verma Aged About 43 Years R/o Polsai Para, Mahalaxmi Printing Press Gali, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Vinay Verma S/o Dhannalal Verma Aged About 39 Years R/o Polsai Para, Mahalaxmi Printing Press Gali, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pulgaon, Tehsil And District Durg C.G. 2 - The Superintendent Of Police, Durg, District Durg C.G. 3 - Shri Purushottam Verma S/o Late D.P. Verma Aged About 66 Years R/o Vidyut Nagar, Police Station Padmanabpur, Tehsil And District Durg C.G. 4 - Pratik Verma S/o Purushottam Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Vidyut Nagar, Police Station Padmanabpur, Tehsil And District Durg C.G. 5 - Yash Verma S/o Purushottam Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Vidyut Nagar, Police Station Padmanabpur, Tehsil And District Durg C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 to 5 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 07/10/2025 1. Since both the petitions arising out of a family dispute and both the parties lodged the reports against each other, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 3 2. The Complainant/respondent No. 2 in CRMP No. 2741/2025 lodged FIR bearing Crime No. 65/2025 against Purshottam Das Verma, Yash Verma and Prateek Verma at Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg for offence under Sections 296, 127 (2), 351 (3) and 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023 alleging, inter-alia therein that she is cousin daughter-in-law of Purshottam Das Verma and Yash Verma and Prateek Verma are the sons of Purshottam Das Verma. According to the complainant/respondent No. 2, when she went to clean the house situated at Kolihapuri at that time, the above accused persons came and started abusing her and her family members with filthy language and they also locked her inside the house. According to her, she has no knowledge about the previous enmosity between her father-in-law and the accused persons. 3. The Complainant/Respondent No. 3 in CRMP No. 2078/2025 lodged FIR bearing Crime No. 66/2025 at Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, against Abhishek Verma, Nitin Verma, and Vinay Verma for offences under Sections 296, 324(4), 351(2), and 3(5) of the BNS Act, 2023. It is alleged that on 05/03/2025, the accused persons, after breaking the boundary wall of his factory, forcibly entered a locked room, illegally possessed the same, and thereafter, by threatened the Complainant/Respondent No. 3 and his family with dire consequences and also verbally abused them. 4. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned Counsel for Purshottam Das Verma, Yash Verma, and Prateek Verma would submit that the impugned FIR No. 65/2025 dated 05.03.2025 is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law and is liable to be quashed. The allegations against the said accused are baseless. The investigation, including the final report dated 29.04.2025 under Sections 296, 4 127(2), 351(3), and 3(5) of the BNS Act, 2023, does not disclose any evidence implicating the above mentioned accused. It is submitted that the incidents were orchestrated to falsely implicate them. A civil suit filed by the father-in- law of the complainant/Sonam Verma against the accused persons was earlier decided in their favour. Further, the complainant and her family members have illegally possessed the premises in question. Even if the allegations are taken at face value, they do not prima facie constitute any offence. 5. Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for Abhishek Verma, Nitin Verma, Vinay Verma and Sonam Verma would submit that the FIR No. 66/2025 lodged at Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, against these accused is wholly baseless, illegal, and liable to be quashed. The allegations leveled against the above accused lack any foundation, and the investigation has not disclosed a single piece of evidence implicating them. The entire dispute arises out of a family quarrel, and the complainant, along with his family members, has himself engaged in illegal acts, including forcible and unlawful possession of the premises in question. Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, they do not prima facie constitute any offence against them, as such the FIR and all consequential proceedings be quashed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of both the parties. 7. Bare perusal of the material on record clearly indicates that the parties have been involved in a long-standing family dispute. The petitioners and the complainant have lodged FIRs against each other, but it is evident that the 5 underlying conflict relates to property and possession issues between them. From the sequence of events and the nature of allegations, it appears that the matter is primarily civil in nature, and the criminal complaints have been filed under the guise of criminality to harass each other. From the material available on record, it is evident that the father-in-law of complainant Sonam filed a civil suit against Purushottam and others wherein the suit was decreed in his favour, which was challenged by Purushottam and others in civil appeal before the District Court wherein the judgment and decree passed by the trail Court was set aside and allowed the civil appeal. Thus, it is crystal clear that there is a property dispute between the parties and they are quarreling for possession of the property. From the said facts, this Court is of the view of that the present is purely civil dispute between the family members and by giving the colour of criminality the reports have been lodged against each other. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly that both the parties are relatives and have been litigating for possession and property rights, it is evident that the criminal proceedings were initiated with a malafide intent to harass each other. It is settled principle of law that criminal proceedings cannot be used to resolve the civil disputes and the same should be quashed, if they are an abuse of the legal processs. It appears that both the parties herein are litigating since a long for a civil dispute and both crime/FIRs have been lodged agaisnt each other to settle their civil dispute. The allegations in FIR No. 65/2025 and FIR No. 66/2025, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any prima facie offence. In these circumstances, the initiation of criminal proceedings clearly constitutes an abuse of the process of law. 6 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that both FIRs are liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS Act. Accordingly, FIR No. 65/2025 and FIR No. 66/2025 registered at Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, are hereby quashed. The parties may, if so advised, pursue civil remedies for any grievances. 10. Consequently, both the CRMPs are allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri