1 2025:CGHC:17543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1314 of 2025 1 - Saiyyad Mohammed Yasin S/o Late Saiyyad Mohammed Karim Aged About 70 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda (Dargah), Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Saiyyad Mohammed Naim S/o Late Saiyyad Mohammed Rahim Aged About 75 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, (Dargah), Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Saiyyad Abdul Gaffar S/o Late Saiyyad Mohammed Rahim Aged About 60 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, (Dargah), Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Saiyyad Mohammed Ibrahim S/o Late Saiyyad Mohammed Rahim Aged About 50 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, (Dargah), Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Saiyyad Mohammed Akbar S/o Saiyyad Mohammed Naim Aged About 45 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, (Dargah), Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Saiyyad Ali Jaan S/o Saiyyad Mohammed Hussain Aged About 48 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, (Dargah), Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.06.09 15:18:52 +0530 2 6 - Saiyyad Mohammed Hassan S/o Saiyyad Mohammed Aasin Aged About 48 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, (Dargah), Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Saiyyad Jainul Aabdin S/o Saiyyad Mohammed Aasin Aged About 40 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, (Dargah), Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Saiyyad Azam S/o Saiyyad Mohammed Aasin Aged About 35 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, (Dargah), Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Mohammed Akbar S/o Gulab Khan Aged About 46 Years R/o Naya Sarkanda, (Dargah), Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - Ali Mohammed Khan S/o Nek Mohammed Khan Aged About 75 Years R/o Katni, Police Station- Katni, District- Katni (M.P.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 16/04/2025 1. The matter is listed on default. On due consideration, the default pointed out by the registry of this court is ignored. 2. Heard on admission. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the impugned order dated 13-09-2024, passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Criminal Revision No. 119/2023, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a complainant in the complaint case. On 22-02-2003, he filed a complaint case under Section 200 of the 3 Cr.P.C. against the proposed accused persons, before the learned Judicial magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, for the offences under Sections 466, 467, 420, 500, 502 and 120 of the IPC. In the said complaint case, a report was called from the concerned police in which it was informed that an FIR of Crime No. 106/2003 was registered against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 466, 467, 420, 500 and 120 of the IPC; however, in absence of any cogent evidence, a closure report has been submitted by the police on 06-05-2003. 5. The averments in the complaint case were that the parties are relatives and residents of the same place. The right to manage the properties of the Mosque was given to the complainant by the head of the community, but the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are trying to grab the property of the Mosque with the collusion of other accused persons. They obtained a forged death certificate of Late Mohd. Raheem, from Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, showing his death on 11-09-1959, who actually died on 07-04-1959 at Vallor (Tamil Nadu). A civil suit No. 335-A/2002 was also filed by the complainant before the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur, with respect to the land of Kh. No. 1132, 1108/4 and 1108/36 and an interim order of injunction has also been passed in his favour. The accused persons have got mutated the 0.02 Acres (02 Dismil) of land in their names in the revenue records and are in the process of selling the land to the accused Nos. 7 and 8 and has obtained Rs. 2,20,000/-. 6. After hearing the complainant and perusal of the record of the case on the point of registration of the complaint case, the learned trial court has passed the order on 16-02-2023 and has dismissed the complaint case by holding that there is insufficient evidence to register the offence against the accused persons and lack of specific allegation of the offence committed by the accused persons. The said order dated 16-02-2023 was challenged by the complainant by filing the Criminal Revision No. 119/2023, before the learned 4 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 13-09-2024. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the material produced along with the complaint has not been considered properly by the learned trial court as well as the revisional court. There is sufficient evidence on record that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 hatched a conspiracy with other accused persons and obtained a forged death certificate of Mohd. Raheem, from Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, showing his death on 11-09-1959, whereas he died on 07-04-1959 at Vallor (Tamil Nadu). Despite the interim order granted by the learned trial court in Civil Suit No. 335-A/2002, the 0.02 Acre of land has been mutated in the names of the accused Nos. 1 to 4, and they are in the process of selling it. The complainant was authorised by the head of the community to manage the property of the Mosque. There are two death certificates of Mohd. Raheem showing the different dates of his death. From the document dated 11-09-2002, it prima facie shows that the complainant was appointed as Mutwalli of the Mosque and the land of Kh. No. 1132, area 1.62 Acres, was given as a gift to the Mosque. The land of the other Kh. No. 1108/4 area 0.09 Acres and 1136 area 0.03 Acres were purchased from the income of the Mosque in the name of Mohd. Raheem and Mohd. Naeem. There are statements of the complainant and his witnesses that the accused persons are threatening the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of the material evidence available on the record, and the same is liable to be set aside with the direction to register the complaint case and to proceed with the trial. 8. From perusal of the complaint memo filed along with the petition, it reflects that the complainant has filed the Civil Suit No. 335-A/2002 with respect to the subject land of Kh. No. 1132, 1108/4 and 1108/6, in which an interim injunction has been granted in his favour. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused persons are hatching a conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, 5 they obtained a forged death certificate of Mohd. Raheem showing his date of death as 01-09-1959 at Bilaspur, and get some part of the land mutated in their name. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 have also obtained Rs. 2,20,000/- for their business, and his report has not been registered by the police. It is also disclosed that a criminal case against the complainant, with respect to the offence of loot of Rs. 50,000/-, is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. The other allegations are also made in the complaint that the accused persons are preparing false documents, they have lodged a false complaint that the wife of the complainant is claiming divorce from him, which is found to be false. The main allegation against the accused persons which as alleged by the complainant, is that the accused persons Nos. 1 to 4 have obtained a false death certificate of Mohd. Raheem, but it has not been disclosed as to whose affidavit was used to issue the other death certificate and where it was submitted. There are no documents on record submitted by the complainant with respect to the outcome of the Civil Suit or Criminal Case that was pending between the parties. The learned trial court, after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, has dismissed the complaint for want of sufficient material and evidence against the accused persons. 9. The learned revisional court has considered that on the report of Ali Mohammad, an FIR was registered against the complainant and two other persons, for the offence of Section 341, 294, 34 of the IPC and charge sheet was filed against them. Another FIR of Crime No. 154/2002 was registered against Mohd. Gaffar and 9 others on the report of Mohd. Kadar, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 506 of the IPC, and charge sheet was filed. In the offence of Crime No. 106/2003, closure report was submitted by the police on 06-05-2003. The learned revisional court has also considered that there is lack of documentary evidence to prove the allegation made in the complaint and upheld the dismissal order of the complaint. 6 10.There is no document as to who has filed the affidavit for the issuance of the death certificate of Mohd. Raheem. There are no documents on the outcome of either the Civil Suit or Criminal Case. Closure report has also been submitted with respect to Crime No. 106/2003 by the concerned police. 11. After having gone through the material annexed with the petition and the impugned orders passed by the learned trial court and the revisional court, I do not find any irregularity or illegality to interfere with the impugned order invoking the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika