1 2025:CGHC:53810-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3163 of 2025 1 - Narendra Sonkar S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Sonkar Aged About 59 Years R/o Ramkundpara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Jaiprakash Sonkar S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Sonkar Aged About 51 Years R/o Ramkundpara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Ajay Sonkar S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Sonkar Aged About 49 Years R/o Ramkundpara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Rama Sonkar W/o Late Shri Yashwant Sonkar Aged About 61 Years R/o Kushalpur, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Lalita Sonkar W/o Shri Bhagwat Sonkar Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Edruz Ward, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 6 - Anita Sonkar W/o Late Shri Ramadhin Sonkar Aged About 56 Years R/o Ramakrishna Ashram, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.) 7 - Savita Purbiya W/o Mr. Rajesh Purbiya Aged About 54 Years R/o Vinoba Bhave, Ward No.-21, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G) 8 - Mahesh Sonkar S/o Late Shri Gangaram Sonkar Aged About 58 Years R/o Ramkundpara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 9 - Raviprakash Sonkar S/o Late Shri Gangaram Sonkar Aged About 57 Years R/o Ramkundpara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 10 - Bhima @ Sohanlal Sonkar S/o Late Shri Gangaram Sonkar Aged About 77 Years R/o 14, Central Avenue East, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 11 - Ramdulare Sonkar S/o Late Shri Gangaram Sonkar Aged About 74 Years R/o Beside Mahamaya Hospital, Rohinipuram, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 12 - Ishwar Kumar Sonkar S/o Late Shri Gangaram Sonkar Aged About 64 Years R/o Shiv Chowk, Lavanya Beauty Parlour, Bhim Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shri Arvind Rahul S/o Late Shri T. Prasad Aged About 60 Years Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation- Zone Vii, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, 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. Kashif Shakeel, 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 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS), the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 365/2025 registered at Police Station, Gudhiyari, District Raipur, for the oDence under Section 292(C) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, the Act of 1956). 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the Petitioners are related to each other and belong to one joint family. The father of Petitioner No. 1 to 7 and Petitioner No. 8 to 12 are the sons of Late Shri Gangaram Sonkar. Petitioner No. 1 to 3 is the sons and Petitioner No. 4 to 7 is the daughters of Late Shri Mohanlal Sonkar. Late Shri Mohanlal Sonkar died in the year 2021. The Petitioner No. 4 to 7 are living in their 3 matrimonial homes with their husbands after marriage from last many years. Late Shri Mohanlal Sonkar along with his brothers had joint ownership of land in Gudhiyari, having Khasra No. 844/1, area 0.9054 hectare, which was sold by the family from time to time for domestic Enancial need of the family for marriages and other purposes in a long span of 13 years i.e. from the year 2009 to 2023. 4 Mr. Shakeel, learned counsel for the petitioner submit that from perusal of impugned FIR, it is evident that the FIR has been Eled by the Respondent No. 2 who is an Assistant Engineer in Zone 7 of the Municipal Corporation Raipur and in the contents it has been mentioned that on the instructions of Zone Commissioner the Respondent No. 2 is lodging the FIR on the basis of information provided by the Additional Tehsildar vide letter dated 10.08.2024 that the petitioners were selling their diverted plots in small pieces by doing illegal plotting without colony development permission from Municipal Corporation. 5 Mr. 5 Mr. Shakeel further submits that the petitioners are that the Petitioners basically agriculturist and they are not using the diverted land for commercial purpose and they are not builder or Colonizer who is developing any colony. They have not constructed any colony. Hence they do not fall under the deEnition of Colonizer. As the family is not having any other source of income other than agriculture therefore at the time of marriage of any family member or to meet out medical treatment expenses of members of family the elders have sold some parts of Khasra No. 844/1 in past. They have not made any illegal plotting and whenever they have sold a small portion of their owned diverted land they have sold it after 'Bataankan'. Earlier also in order to harass the petitioners some complaint was made but since last one year the Police 4 had kept mum over the investigation. Surprisingly after almost a year the Petitioners came to know in mid of the month of August 2025 that due to some political pressure the Police has registered a FIR on 08.08.2025 against the Petitioners upon the complaint of the Respondent No. 2 without any jurisdiction only to harass the Petitioners with mala de intentions. The Petitioners Eled an application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S.. 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail before this Hon'ble Court and vide order dated 29.08.2025 the Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the application. Section 396 of the Act of 1956 provides for the procedure in prosecution. The same reads as under: “396. Procedure in prosecution. - No Magistrate shall take cognizance of any o$ence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made there under, except on a complaint signed by the Commissioner or by any Municipal O*cer or the o*cer-in-charge of a police Station authorized by the Commissioner in this behalf either generally in regard to all such o$ences or particularly in regard to specic o$ences or o$ences of a special class." 6 Further, Section 398 of the Act of 1956 prescribes the limitation for prosecution. It states that no Magistrate shall take cognizance of any oDence under this Act or under any rule or byelaw made there under unless complaint of such oDence is made - (a) within six months next after the date of the Commission of such oDence; or (b) if such date is not known or the oDence is a continuing one, within six months next after the date on which the Commissioner or of any oIcer or servant whose duty it is to report such oDence to the Commissioner". From perusal of the FIR the date of oDence is 10.08.2024 and the date of FIR is 08.08.2025 which means that the present FIR has been registered beyond the period of limitation under Section 398 (a) and 398 (b) of the Act of 1956 hence is time barred and no cognizance can be taken over by any Court in the present matter. 5 7 Mr. Shakeel further places 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 29.04.2015. 8 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. 9 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 oDences under Sections 292 of the Act of 1956 and only a complaint before the competent authority or a public servant authorised under the Act, can be made. 10 In view of the above submission, the FIR bearing Crime No. 365/2025, registered at Police Station, Gudhiyari, District Raipur, for the oDence under Section 292(C) of the Act of 1956, stands quashed. 11 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 11:43:19 +0530