1 2025:CGHC:57122-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3578 of 2025 Anju Gupta D/o Late Narayan Prasad Gupta Aged About 57 Years R/o Swami Atmanand Ward No. 15, Karbala Para G.E. Road, Raipur, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Office-In-Charge, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Anil Gupta S/o Late Narayan Prasad Gupta Aged About 67 Years R/o Shiv Mandir Chowk, Avanti Vihar Raipur, Telibanda Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Anita Gupta W/o Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta Aged About 64 Years R/o Street-1/a Pragati Nagar, Risali, Bhilai Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25 .11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.11.25 16:03:16 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased quash the proceedings of criminal case Number 18623/2023 "State versus Anju Gupta" pending before the court of JMFC Raipur, first information report dt. 02.08.2023 number 219 of 2023 registered by police station Sarswati Nagar Raipur, U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC and chargesheet number 239/2023 dt. 19.12.2023 so that justice may be called for.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire criminal proceedings initiated vide FIR No. 219/2023 dated 02.08.2023 and the consequential chargesheet No. 239/2023 dated 19.12.2023, now pending in Criminal Case No. 18623/2023 before the learned JMFC, Raipur, are a gross abuse of the process of law and are liable to be quashed for multiple reasons. It is submitted that the property in dispute, i.e., House No. 15/1235, Karbala Para, Swami Atmanand Ward No. 15, Raipur, was duly purchased by late Aditya Gupta on 09.06.1995 under a registered sale deed. Since purchase, late Aditya Gupta resided therein along with his mother Smt. Laxmi Gupta, his brother late Anand Gupta, the petitioner, and other family members. After the intestate death of Aditya Gupta on 09.12.2016, the property came to be mutated in the names of the then-residing family members in Transfer Case No. 149/2018-19 after due verification by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. 4. t is further submitted that serious family discord existed between the mother of the parties, Smt. Laxmi Gupta, and respondents Anil 3 Gupta (R-2) and Ashok Gupta, compelling her to lodge a written complaint on 03.08.2019 regarding their forcible possession of house documents and failure to maintain her. Owing to persistent harassment and neglect by them, Smt. Laxmi Gupta executed a duly notarised Will dated 19.12.2020 in favour of the petitioner and minor Kapil Gupta. The earlier mutation carried out in the municipal records during the lifetime of Smt. Laxmi Gupta was thus based upon her own free will and volition, and therefore cannot be alleged to be fraudulent or forged. 5. It is submitted that the FIR dated 02.08.2023 has been lodged as a retaliatory measure arising out of the ongoing property dispute, and the allegations therein relate entirely to issues of co-ownership, family contribution, succession and joint possession matters which are indisputably civil in nature. These very issues are already the subject matter of Civil Suit No. 341A/2024 filed by respondent No.3 Smt. Anita Gupta seeking declaration and permanent injunction, in which an order of status quo has been passed on 09.09.2024. When the core dispute pertains to title and civil rights in immovable property, the criminal prosecution alleging forgery and fraud cannot be allowed to proceed, particularly when the foundational facts are wholly civil. It is also pointed out that all parties, including respondent No.2 Anil Gupta and respondent No.3 Anita Gupta, subsequently entered into a comprehensive settlement dated 23.05.2025 settling all disputes relating to the house, including the present criminal case and other proceedings pending before different authorities. 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are real brothers, and respondent No.3 is their sister, who, in connivance with respondent No.2, has chosen to give a civil dispute the colour of a criminal offence by initiating both criminal proceedings and a parallel civil suit on the same cause of action. The dispute essentially concerns inheritance, title and family partition, and has been maliciously projected as a criminal act to exert pressure on the petitioner. It is submitted that pursuant to the compromise executed between the petitioner and respondent No.2, even the appeal pending before the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, has been withdrawn. However, despite such settlement, respondent No.2 is deliberately avoiding appearance before the trial Court to formalise the compromise, thereby causing the criminal proceedings to continue unnecessarily and oppressively. In these circumstances, continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would be nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law, warranting exercise of inherent powers of this Court to quash the proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for quashing and submits that the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offences relating to preparation of forged documents, fraudulent mutation, and wrongful usurpation of property. It is contended that the investigating agency, after due investigation, has filed a chargesheet finding sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner, and the matter is now at the stage of trial. It is further 5 submitted that mere pendency of a civil suit or existence of a family dispute cannot be a ground for quashing a criminal case where specific allegations of forgery and cheating are made. The compromise relied upon by the petitioner has not been brought on record before the Trial Court in accordance with law, nor has respondent No.2 appeared to affirm the same. Until the compromise is duly verified and accepted, the prosecution cannot be terminated on that basis. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record with utmost circumspection. The documents and order-sheets have been carefully examined, including the stage of proceedings before the Trial Court, which shows that the matter was fixed for framing of charge and that the petitioner failed to appear despite having been granted a last opportunity. 9. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon due perusal of the order-sheets of the trial Court, it emerges that the matter was listed for framing of charge. However, the petitioner has failed to remain present before the trial Court on the scheduled dates despite repeated opportunities having been granted. The order-sheet also reflects that a last opportunity was already extended to the petitioner to secure her presence, which she did not avail. 10. In the above factual backdrop, and taking into consideration the stage of the proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that it would not be appropriate to interfere with the ongoing trial at this 6 juncture by invoking inherent jurisdiction. At the same time, it is clarified that the petitioner is not remedy-less. 11. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the allegations and without expressing any opinion on the criminal or civil aspects of the dispute, the instant petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for discharge before the learned trial Court, if so desire. In the event such an application is filed, the trial Court shall consider, examine, and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits, and uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order. 12. In the result, the present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions/observations. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu