1 2025:CGHC:53811-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3224 of 2025 Ramesh Gangwani S/o Sakharmal Gangwani Aged About 68 Years R/o Purani Basti Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Purani Basti Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Saiyad Joheb S/o Saiyad Jahangir Aged About 32 Years Working As Deputy Engineer Nagar Palika Nigam Raipur Zone No. 5, Eidgah Bhatha Raipur, PS- Azad Chowk, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04/11/2025 1 Heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. R.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS), the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “a) Quash the FIR dated 19.07.2021, bearing Crime No. 189/2021 (Annexure P/1), registered at Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.), for the o-ence punishable under Section 292 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, as the same is not maintainable in the eyes of law; b) Quash the chargesheet dated 28.12.2021, bearing Chargesheet No. 307/2021 (Annexure P/2), 5led before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the alleged o-ence under Section 292-C of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956; c) Quash the Cognizance Order dated 20.01.2022 (Annexure - P/3) passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur and all consequential/subsequent proceedings arising therefrom pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in criminal case no. 468/2022 against the petitioner in connection with the said FIR and chargesheet; d) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just, 5t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that he is alleged to have illegally cut the plots in his land for developing residential colony without obtaining permission for development of colony from the Municipal Corporation Raipur and without following the due process of law. 4 The respondent No. 2, Syed Zoheb, who is working as Deputy Engineer in Municipal Corporation Zone No. 5, Raipur made an application at Police Station, Purani Basti through the reference letter of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, dated 30.06.2021, and o<ce of Sub Divisional O<ce (R) Raipur, letter dated 18.03.2021 and lodged a report against 3 the petitioner to the e=ect that in Khasra No. 327/8 and 328/8 admeasuring about 0.005 hectare and 0.084 hectare in Raipur was registered in the name of the petitioner and on the aforesaid land, the petitioner has done illegal plotting and sold the plot without colony development permit, without getting lay out pass, without obtaining colonizer licence and without obtaining colony development permission from Municipal Corporation Raipur. On the aforesaid application of the respondent No. 2, an FIR bearing Crime No. 189/2021 dated 19.07.2021 under section 292 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, the Act of 1956) has been registered by the Police of Police Station Purani Basti Raipur against the petitioner. After completion of the investigation by the police, the charge-sheet bearing No. 307/2021 dated 28.12.202 has been Bled by the police before the learned Court of JMFC Raipur and the learned, JMFC Raipur on the basis of charge-sheet Bled by the police took cognizance on 20.01.2022 in Criminal Case No. 468/2022 against the present petitioner and issued summons to the petitioner. 5 Mr. Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforementioned crime and the entire proceedings against the petitioner is not maintainable as per the provisions given under section 396 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act as Section 396 prescribes that cognizance can only be taken by Magistrate for the o=ence prescribed under the Act of 1956 on the basis of a complaint made by o<cers prescribed therein. The further contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 could have Bled a complaint case and not lodge an FIR directly before the police. In the present case, contrary to the mandate of Section 396, an FIR has been lodged against the Petitioner and charge- sheet Bled and cognizance has been taken on the basis of police report 4 and thus the entire proceeding against the petitioner is bad in the eyes of law and also a blatant ignorance of the due legal procedure and therefore the same is abuse of process of law and the entire proceedings therefore deserve to be quashed. He places his reliance on the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by this Court in Mithlesh Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others {Cr.M.P. No. 1565/2024} which had further relied on the decision rendered by another Bench in Writ Appeal No. 46 of 2015 in the matter of Bhanwar Lal Parakh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, decided on 29/4/2015. 6 Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1/State submits that the FIR was registered by the police on the complaint made by the respondent No. 2 and the main contesting party would be the respondent No. 2 in this matter. 7 On 28.10.2025, this Court had directed the Municipal Commissioner, Raipur to Ble his personal a<davit calling upon an explanation from the respondent No. 2 as to why he being conscious of the fact that FIR could not be lodged for the o=ence in question except the complaint under the Act, 1956. Pursuant to the said order, the a<davit has been Bled today itself alongwith a covering memo stating therein that the concerned Zone O<cer and the sta= had acted under the bonaBde impression that Police action under the said Section could be initiated directly, without a separate complaint. 8 Mr. R.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 fairly admits that in view of this Hon’ble Court’s decision in Mithlesh Jaiswal (supra) and Bhanwar Lal Parakh (supra) FIR cannot be registered for o=ences under Sections 292-C of the Act of 1956 and only a complaint before the 5 competent authority or a public servant authorised under the Act, can be made. 9 In view of the above submission, the FIR dated 19.07.2021 bearing Crime No. 189/2021 registered at Police Station, Purani Basti, Raipur, for the o=ence punishable under Section 292 of the Act of 1956, the charge sheet dated 28.12.2021 bearing No. 307/2021 Bled before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (for short, the JMFC), Raipur, for the o=ence under Section 292-C of the Act of 1956, the cognizance order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom in Criminal Case No. 468/2022, stands quashed. 10 As a result, this petition stands allowed. However, the respondent No. 2 would be at liberty to take recourse to law before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.11.06 11:43:00 +0530