1 2025:CGHC:20365-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1522 of 2025 Kapil Bansal S/o Shri Prahlad Singh Bansal Aged About 47 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Prahlad Singh In The Cause Title Of The Charge Sheet), R/o Manendragarh Road, Near Holy Cross School, Police Station Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office Of Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Anil Kumar Bansal S/o Kishan Chand Bansal Aged About 55 Years R/o Fundurdihari, Manendragarh Road, Near Holy Cross School, Police Station Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.05.2025 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.05.07 10:28:04 +0530 2 heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “A. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the cognisance order dated 03.02.2025, passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 213/2025 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Sarguja under under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,120B, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860. B. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings pending in Regular Criminal Case No. 213/2025 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Sarguja under under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,120B, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860. C. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the chargesheet bearing No. 635/2024 filed on 09.12.2024 filed in FIR bearing Crime No. 606/2022 registered at P.S.- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G) dated 09.07.2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 of IPC. D. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash FIR bearing Crime No. 606/2022 registered at P.S.- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G) dated 09.07.2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 of IPC. 3 E. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the petitioner is accused in FIR bearing No. 606/2022, at P.S.- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G) dated 09.07.2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(b), 201 of IPC registered on a complaint made by private respondent. The complainant and the petitioner are cousin brothers. The complainant submitted a written complaint to P.S.- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G) alleging that the petitioner allegedly obtained the sale deed dated 26.11.2020 in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 323/11 ad-measuring 0.202 hectare situated at Ajirma, Tehsil Ambikapur, District- Sarguja by using forged documents in the name of Bhagwat Shrivastava, whose current whereabouts are unknown to anyone. The complainant further asserts that the land in question has been in the possession of their father for the past 40-50 years. The complaint alleges that the petitioner's actions are fraudulent, involving the use of false and fabricated documents to claim ownership of the property. After the complaint was filed, an explanation was sought from the petitioner wherein the petitioner had specifically replied to the police that the petitioner and his family are in possession of the said piece of land since last 70 years. The complainant is the cousin brother of the petitioner and 4 there exists family dispute between them. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the Learned trial Court on the ground that they could not trace Bhagwat Prasad and hence it seems that the sale deed was executed fraudulently. After due investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the Learned trial Court. Further, the father of the petitioner had preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the land in dispute bearing Khasra No. 313/11 area 0.202 hectares which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 05.07.2016 passed in Civil Suit A No. 38/14 and Bhagwat Prasad was injuncted from dispossessing the petitioner's father except in accordance with law. Furthermore, since the father of the petitioner was in possession of the land for last around 40-50 years, he filed an application under provisions of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for recording his possession on the land in dispute in the revenue records. Vide order dated 29.10.2005, 15.06.2007 and 08.02.2008, it has been directed by the Tehsildar, Ambikapur, Distroct- Sarguja that it be recorded in the revenue records for year 2005-06, 2006- 07 and 2007-08 that the father of the petitioner is in possession of the said land. However, the title was still in the name of Bhagwat Prasad. The aforesaid orders were challenged by the complainant before the Learned Sub-divisional Officer (R), Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G) which has been dismissed vide orders dated 11.04.2025, on the ground that the same is barred by 5 limitation. The complainant has also filed a civil suit bearing CS A/36/2023 against the petitioner and his family members seeking that the aforesaid sale deed dated 26.11.2020 be declared as null and void. The civil suit is still pending consideration between the parties on the same issue pertaining to the same suit land on the ground that the sale deed was forged. The petitioner had already executed a registered sale deed on 26.11.2020 and purchased the land from the original owner Bhagwat Prasad. The sale deed has duly been registered before the Office of the Sub- Registrar, Ambikapur. It was only 2 years after the sale deed was registered that the complainant, on a prior family dispute filed a complaint before the police stating that the aforesaid sale deed is forged and fraudulent. The petitioner has already obtained anticipatory bail vide MCRCA No. 1142/2022 order dated 02.03.2023. 4. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the documents relied upon by the prosecution including the complaint does not disclose any offence being committed by the petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioner. The dispute is purely civil in nature, and the complainant has already approached the civil court to seek remedy. The criminal proceedings are unwarranted and an abuse of the legal process and continuing a criminal proceeding against the petitioner shall be an abuse of process of Court. The instant is 6 merely a civil dispute between the parties which have been given criminal colours. There is a huge unexplained delay in filing of the instant complaint. The petitioner and his family have been residing on the land since a very long period. The complainant has a small shop over the said land and with an intention to grab the said land and to harass the petitioner and his family, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. The ingredient under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 of IPC are not applicable in the present case, as there is no evidence of fraudulent intent or criminal activity. The case is a misapplication of criminal law in a matter. Criminal prosecution cannot used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. Reliance is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 268. 5. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed, as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. Learned trial Court after considering all the aspects of the case, has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 of the IPC, in which, no interference is sought for. 7 6. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of charge-sheet goes to show that the petitioner is a resident of village Fundurdihari Manendragarh Road Ambikapur. In village Fundurdihari Manendragarh Road, there is land measuring 0.202 hectares in Khasra No. 323/11 which is recorded in the revenue records in the name of Bhagwat Prasad. The petitioner has been in possession of the above land for a long time, but the original land owner is Bhagwat Prasad, S/o- Balram, whose whereabouts are not known. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner knows the whereabouts of Bhagwad Prasad from whom the property in question is said to have been purchased from, it is stated that he has no knowledge about his whereabouts. 9. As such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses cognizable offence on the part of the petitioner. Hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end. 10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet