1 2025:CGHC:58571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3614 of 2025 1 - Moharram Sahu S/o Late Dashrath Sahu Aged About 59 Years Caste - Teli, Resident Of Village- Bilaspur, P.S. Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 - Hemprakash Sahu S/o Moharram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Caster - Telhi Resident Of Village Bilaspur, P.S. Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ayush Kumar Tiwari ( Tehsildar Sarsiwa) Aged About 50 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 - Gauribai Sahu Wd/o Dashrath Sahu Aged About 80 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - Chheduram Sahu S/o Dhajaram Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Malda A, Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Rameshwari Bai Sahu D/o Dashrath Sahu Aged About 52 Years 2 Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - Parmeshwari Sahu D/o Dashrath Sahu Aged About 50 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - Shanta Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Tularam Sahu Aged About 47 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 7 - Gangotri Bai D/o Dashrath Sahu Aged About 44 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 8 - Haris Sahu S/o Tularam Sahu Aged About 25 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 9 - Manish Sahu S/o Tularam Sahu Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 10 - Gadha Ram Sahu Aged About 75 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 11 - Lokprakash Tripathi Aged About 65 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 12 - Arvind Kumar Pushti S/o Mahadev Pushti Aged About 52 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, 3 District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 13 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Jagat Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years (As Per Page No.36) Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 14 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Jodharam Sahu Caste - Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur,police Station And Tehsil Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 03/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 read with Section 400 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned orders:  Order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatgaon, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 688/2024 whereby the learned judge dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no sufficient ground in the case to proceed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. 4  Order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh in Complaint Case No. 340/2025 whereby the learned judge has dismissed the complaint case.  Order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 438/2025, whereby the learned judge has dismissed the petition as prima facie unenforceable. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.11.2024 the Petitioners filed a Criminal Complaint (Unregistered Case No. 688/2024) before the JMFC, Bhatgaon, under Section 318 BNSS for Fabricating False Evidence and Tampering with Official Records against the Respondents, including the Tehsildar (Respondent No. 1). While the said criminal complaint was pending, the Petitioners filed an application for the transfer of the case under Section 410 CrPC before the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Sarangarh, on 04.02.2025, apprehending prejudice and improper proceedings. During the pendency of the transfer application, the JMFC, Bhatgaon, dismissed the criminal complaint on 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) under Section 203 Cr.P.C, citing that the matter was "civil in nature" and that sanction for prosecution was missing. Subsequently the transfer application filed by petitioners (Annexure P-3) was dismissed by the CJM, Sarangarh, vide order dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) based on the JMFC's, Bhatgaon 5 report that the original complaint had already been disposed of. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed a Criminal Revision Petition (Annexure P-5) against the order of JMFC, Bhatgaon dated 23.01.2025 and the CJM, Sarangarh order dated 21.04.2025 before the Court of learned Addl. Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh District Sarangarh-(ANNEXURE P-6) Bilaigarh which was too dismissed on 06.09.2025. The Sessions Court held that the CJM's order rejecting transfer was an administrative order and therefore not maintainable in revision under Section 438 BNSS. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Erroneous Pre- Emptive Dismissal: The learned JMFC, Bhatgaon, committed a grave error by dismissing the criminal complaint on 23.01.2025, which was before the subsequent orders but during the time the Petitioners’intention to transfer the case was clear (transfer application filed 05.02.2025, challenging proceedings). The dismissal failed to appreciate that the core allegation was fabrication of evidence (Section 318 BNS) and tampering with a judicial record, which is a cognizable criminal offence, not merely a civil dispute. Failure To Examine Evidence: The dismissal under Section 203 CrPC was illegal as the JMFC failed to properly scrutinize the detailed allegations and the evidence of tampering (missing 33 and 88-page document sets), which demonstrate a prima facie case of official misconduct and conspiracy. Procedural Impropriety: The dismissal of the transfer application by the CJM 6 on 21.04.2025 and the subsequent ruling by the Sessions Court on 06.09.2025 have created an insurmountable procedural barrier, leaving the Petitioners without any remedy. The cumulative effect of these orders is the procedural extinction of a genuine criminal complaint. Interests of Justice: The facts clearly demonstrate that the Petitioners cannot expect a fair trial or proper enquiry in the Bhatgaon Court, given the allegations against the presiding officer (Respondent No. 1) and the fact that the original criminal complaint was summarily dismissed in the face of serious accusations of evidence tampering. Miscarriage of Justice: The power of transfer under Section 528 BNSS must be invoked to restore the criminal complaint and transfer it to a neutral and competent Judicial Magistrate in a different district/ sessions division to ensure justice. That the petitioners reserve their right to file any other documents and raise any other grounds as and when required in the case. 5. Learned State Counsel raised an objection to the present petition and has prayed for its dismissal on the ground that the same is baseless and not necessary for the just adjudication of the case. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Upon careful examination of the complaint, statements of the complainant, and the material placed on record, it is evident that the dispute in question is essentially of a civil nature. No specific facts have been pleaded or established which disclose the 7 commission of any cognizable criminal offence. The complainant has failed to place on record any document or material to show that the mandatory sanction for prosecution, as required under law, was obtained against the concerned public servant. 8. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that merely making bald allegations, without supporting evidence or necessary statutory compliance, does not justify initiation of criminal proceedings. The order reflects due application of judicial mind and a correct appreciation of facts and law. There is no perversity, illegality, or procedural irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. It is a settled principle of law that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for settling civil disputes or for exerting pressure upon the opposite party. In the absence of prima facie material constituting an offence, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the petition and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima