1 2025:CGHC:50783-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3088 of 2025 1 - Gomti Shukla W/o Shri Sitaram Shukla, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village And Post Bhurkoni, Police Station Tendukona, Tehsil- Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Satish Shukla S/o Shri Sitaram Shukla Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post- Bhurkoni, Police Station Tendukona, Tehsil- Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Pankaj Shukla S/o Late Shri Sitaram Shukla, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Post- Bhurkoni, Police Station Tendukona, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Tendukona, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sumitra Bhoi W/o Late Shri Sartik Ram Bhoi, R/o Ward No. 15, Vasudev Para, Pithora, P.S. Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinava Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.14 11:20:35 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhinava Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondent / State. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for following relief:- “I. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioners. ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire chargesheet bearing no. 54/2023 filed on 16.08.2023 before the Ld. Special Judge, SC & St Prevention Mahasamund, of Atrocities Act, Chhattisgarh arising out of Crime No. 22/2018 registered at Police Station Tendukona, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) under Section 447, 34 IPC r/w Sec. 3(1)(iv) & (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. iii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to quash entire criminal proceedings bearing Special Criminal Case 11/2023 arising out of the Crime No. 22/2018 registered at Police Station Tendukona, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).” 3. The prosecution case arises from FIR No. 22/2018 lodged at Police Station Tendukona, Distt. Mahasamund on 23.02.2018 for offences under Sections 447/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleging that the petitioners encroached upon Khasra No. 268 (0.70 ha) belonging to the complainant. However, the disputed land was allotted to petitioner No. 1 in 1994-95 under the Indira Awas Yojna, on which she has been residing since then. Earlier, the complainant’s 3 husband filed a revenue case under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, which was dismissed by the Tehsildar on 04.10.2005 for lack of jurisdiction, and the appeal before the SDO was also dismissed on 29.12.2007. Thereafter, without approaching the civil court, the complainant moved the ST Commission and later filed a complaint under the SC/ST Act, which too was dismissed on merits by the Special Judge, holding the dispute to be purely civil in nature. Despite this, upon persistent pressure by the complainant, the FIR was registered in 2018 on the same allegations. The charge-sheet was filed in 2023 and cognizance was taken, even though the same court had earlier declined to interfere in the matter. The discharge application was rejected on 11.02.2025, and subsequent appeal and SLP were dismissed, though liberty was granted to pursue other legal remedies. 4. It is submitted that the present criminal proceedings are nothing but a second attempt to reopen a dispute already adjudicated by the same court on merits, barred by the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel. The controversy is purely civil, concerning title and possession, and lacks any element of criminal intent. The complainant’s repeated efforts before various forums show mala fide intention to harass the petitioners. Therefore, the cognizance and charges framed against the petitioners are legally unsustainable and the proceedings deserve to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present criminal proceedings are a clear case of re-litigation and abuse of process. The matter had already been adjudicated on merits by the learned trial Court in the earlier complaint case, wherein the complaint was dismissed after examining the evidence and holding that no offence under Sections 3(1)(iv) and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was made out. Despite this, the complainant initiated a subsequent FIR on the same set of facts, which is barred by the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.C. Garg v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 791). The sequence of events clearly shows that after losing in the complaint proceedings, the FIR was lodged only as a second attempt to reopen a settled issue, which is legally impermissible. 6. He further submits that Multiple judicial and quasi-judicial forums, including two revenue authorities and the same Special Court, have already held that the dispute is purely civil in nature concerning title and possession, and not a cognizable criminal offence. The petitioners have been in lawful possession of the disputed land since 1998–1999 under the Indira Awas Yojna, allotted by the Gram Panchayat, and have constructed their residence thereon. There is no element of wrongful occupation, dispossession, or caste-based intention to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Even the original complaint did not name petitioner no. 1 and 3, yet they were arbitrarily implicated without specific 5 allegations. The FIR and subsequent cognizance lack the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and therefore fail to make out any prima facie case against the petitioners. This is a classic example of misuse of criminal law to convert a civil land dispute into a criminal proceeding merely to harass and pressurize the petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khuman Singh v. State of M.P. (2019) 8 SCC 615 has held that mere land disputes without caste-based atrocity do not attract the SC/ST Act. In view of these facts, the continuation of proceedings is unsustainable in law and warrants quashing under Section 528 BNSS to prevent miscarriage of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that the FIR No. 22/2018 was duly registered after a preliminary inquiry revealed prima facie commission of cognizable offences under Sections 447/34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv) & 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The allegations specifically relate to encroachment upon land belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribe, thereby attracting the special provisions of the SC/ST Act. During investigation, material evidence including the revenue records, spot inspection report, and witness statements clearly indicate that the complainant was in settled possession prior to the alleged encroachment. The previous dismissal of a private complaint or civil proceeding does not bar criminal prosecution arising out of 6 the same or continuing acts, particularly when the police have subsequently found sufficient material constituting a cognizable offence. The question of ownership or title is a matter of evidence and cannot be conclusively decided at the stage of quashment under Section 528 BNSS. 8. Learned State counsel further submits that the trial in the present case has already commenced. The learned trial Court has framed charges, and the prosecution has begun leading evidence and one witness has already been examined and the matter is fixed for further evidence. It is also submitted that the petitioners had earlier preferred SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 41843 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by this Court, whereby their appeal against the rejection of the discharge application was dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to permit withdrawal of the said SLP with liberty to avail any other remedy available in law. However, instead of pursuing any lawful procedural remedy, the petitioners have now sought quashment of the entire charge-sheet and consequential proceedings, which is impermissible at this stage. 9. In these circumstances, when the charges have already been framed, the discharge application has been rejected, and the trial is underway with evidence already recorded, the present petition is not maintainable and amounts to an attempt to delay the due course of justice. Therefore, in view of the sufficient material on record and the advanced stage of the trial, it is prayed that the 7 present petition under Section 528 BNSS be dismissed as devoid of merit. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the documents and material placed on record along with the petition. 11. Upon a specific query made to learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the trial has commenced and evidence has been recorded, it has been stated that the trial is presently in progress and the statement of at least one prosecution witness has already been recorded. It is also revealed that the petitioners had earlier preferred SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 41843 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order dated 17.04.2025 of this Court, whereby their appeal against the rejection of the discharge application was dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to permit withdrawal of the said SLP, granting liberty to the petitioners to avail any other remedy available to them in accordance with law, but the remedy which the petitioner has resorted now is to quash the entire charge-sheet and the consequential proceedings, cannot be said to be the appropriate remedy and the petitioner cannot take a u-turn and file the present petition with aforesaid prayer as the petitioner’s discharge application was rejected and the charges have been framed against which, he preferred CRA No. 771/2025 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2025 and affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 41843 of 2025. 8 12. 8 12. Considering that charges have already been framed, the discharge application has been rejected, and that the trial is underway with evidence of a witness already recorded, this Court finds no justifiable reason to interfere with the ongoing proceedings at this stage. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet