1 2025:CGHC:1947-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 190 of 2022 1 - Shivcharan Prasad Rathore S/o Samaruram Rathore Aged About 49 Years R/o M.Q. 901, Pragati Ngar, Police Station Deepka, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Deepka, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramawtar Gurudwan S/o Late Vyas Narayan Gurudwan R/o Purani Basti, Hardi Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. N. K. Shukla, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Achyut Tiwari, and Mr. Dinesh Bola, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No.2 : Mr. S. S. Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/01/2025 1. Heard Dr. N. K. Shukla, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Achyut Tiwari, and Mr. Dinesh Bola, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Ubeja, 2 Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State, Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner who is an accused in the case has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, impugning and challenging the FIR of Crime No. 55/2019 registered at Police Station Deepka, District Korba for the offence under Sections 193, 419, 420 of I.P.C. and also challenging the entire charge-sheet and criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 290 of 2021 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Katghora, District Korba with the following prayer: "It is therefore payed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and kindly quash/set-aside the FIR No. 55/2019 registered at Police Station Deepka, District Korba (C.G.), entire charge sheet filed against the petitioner and further proceedings of criminal case no. 209/2021 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) only in relation to the petitioner, in the interest of justice." 3. The subject matter, in brief, is that on 07.09.2017 the respondent no.2 Ramawtar Gurudwan have made a compalint to the Collector Korba with the allegation that in the year 1984 the land of Khasra No. 546/1 area 0.20 acre, situated at village Kosmanda, District Korba was owned and possessed by Samaru son of Harnarayan and he was the recorded owner of the land. As per the rehabilitation policy, one of the family members of the land oustee should be provided employment to the SECL but the present petitioner by impersonating himself Samaru son of Harnarayan obtained employment with the SECL on the basis of forged document with the convenience the Officer of SECL and State Government. It is also alleged in the complaint that the actual owner of the land was Samaru son of Harnarayan and the compensation provided to him, whereas the 3 actual father of the petitioner Samaruram son of Panik Rathod who is the resident of village Navadih Gram Panchayat Utarda, Tahsil Pali, District Korba where he was holding land and house of his ownership. It is also alleged that the affidavit which has been submitted at the time of obtaining employment by petitioner and his father Samaruram is also a false affidavit and to cause damage to the SECL, the petitioner has obtained employment for which the inquiry is required and after due inquiry, he may be terminated from his employment and appropriate action may be taken against him. 4. The complaint of the complainant/respondent no.2 was inquired and after preliminary inquiry the FIR of Crime No. 55/2019 was registered on 19.03.2019 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 193, 419, 420 of I.P.C. After due process of inquiry and recording statement of the witnesses also seizure of the documents, final report has been submitted by the police against the petitioner and other co-accused persons on 21.01.2021 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Katghora, District Korba where the criminal case has been registered vide Crime No. 209/2021 and the trial of the case is pending which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in service since 1984 and after verification of the entire documents with respect to the ownership of the land and entitlement of the petitioner, he has been provided employment against the land oustee whose land have been acquired by the SECL. Since 1984 till 2017 no complaint have been made by any of the parties. There is no offence committed by the petitioner and there is inordinate delay in lodging the report. He would also submits that prior of lodging of the present complaint, the complainant/respondent no.2 has also lodge the complaint against the brother and his wife of the petitioner which was turned down by the police as no prima facie case was found against him. The respondent no.2 has no locus to challenge the 4 appointment of the petitioner and it is only a pressure tactic to extort money from him, he lodge the report against him, therefore, the impugned FIR as well as criminal proceedings may be quashed against the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as private respondent would vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have submitted that during the course of inquiry as well as investigation, statement of Samaruram son of Panik Rathod was recorded in which he admitted that the petitioner is his younger son and he has not executed any affidavit of his employment neither he sign any affidavit. He also admitted that at village Kosmanda, he is not having any land and his father is Panik Rathod. For the employment of his son Shivcharan all the documents have got prepared by one Arun Kumar Pandey, resident of village Bamanpaat and produced it before Officers of SECL. Therefore, the case of the petitioner itself is suspicious that he obtained the rehabilitation employment without having any land at village Kosmanda and no land of his father or himself was the acquired by the SECL. The statement of one Somsai Yadav was also recorded in which he stated he sold his land to Samaru son of Harnarayan resident of village Kosmanda vide sale deed dated 23.01.1980 and he has not sold any land to Somaruram son of Panik Rathod. Taking benefit of the common name of his father, the petitioner, by fraudulently claiming the son of Samaru son of Harnarayan obtained employment in the SECL and in the inquiry sufficient material has been found against the petitioner that he obtained employment on the basis of forged document for which he is being prosecuting. They would further submits that since the matter relates to disputed question of facts which cannot be decided in the present petition and the same can be adjudicated after recording the evidence of the parties, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5 8. The crux of the matte is that as reflected from the documents annexed with the petition that Samaru son of Harnarayan was having certain land at village Kosmanda which was acquired in the year 1984 by SECL. There was a provision to provide employment to one family members of the land oustee. The petitioner has got employment as one of the family member of the land oustee Samaru son of Harnarayan, whereas the declaration given by the petitioner by various affidavits as well as that he is the son of Samaru son of Harnarayan dispute by other side which is definitely question of fact which is to be decided after leading evidence of the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material collected during the investigation, this Court does not found deem fit to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to decide the disputed question of facts in the present petition. 9. In view of the above the present petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21 10:36:13 +0530