1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2592 of 2025 1 - Anganmati W/o Bindulal Dewangan Aged About 51 Years R/o Beldarpara, Champa, P.S. Champa. District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Tejram Dewangan S/o Rakhiram Dewangan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Birra, P.S. Birra, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 – Bhuribai, W/o Rakhiram Dewangan, A/o 52 years, R/o village Birra, P.S. Birra, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 21/08/ 2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, against the order dated 16.06.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, in Revision Case No. 11/2025 arising out of Complaint Case No. 15/2019, whereby the application filed under Section 456 of Cr.P.C. seeking restoration of possession of Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.22 10:21:50 +0530 2 immovable property wrongfully occupied by the respondents has been dismissed. 2. Vide judgment dated 24.08.2018, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 365/2012 (State of C.G. vs. Rakhiram and Ors.), the respondents therein had been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 448/34, 294, 506-II and 323 (three times)/34 of IPC. On that basis, complainant Anganmati filed an application under Section 456 Cr.P.C. before the JMFC for restoration of possession of the disputed land and house on which a Complaint Case No. 15/2019 (Anganmati vs. Rakhiram Dewangan and Ors.) has been registered, and on 13.01.2025, the application was dismissed. 3. Subsequently, the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by JMFC, Champa (C.G.), dismissing the application filed under Section 456 of Cr.P.C. has been challenged by complainant Anganmati, petitioner herein, in Revision Case No. 11/2025 before the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), which has been dismissed vide order dated 16.06.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and was in lawful possession of the property pursuant to a decree dated 01.07.2006 passed in 3 Civil Suit No. 233-A/2005, and actual possession was delivered through execution proceedings. The respondents forcibly dispossessed the petitioner without due process of law, thereby committing offences under Sections 448/34, 294, 506-II and 324/34 of IPC for which they have been convicted. The conviction of the respondents clearly established the unlawful dispossession, thereby satisfying the ingredients required for granting relief under Section 456 of Cr.P.C. Section 456 of Cr.P.C. specifically empowers the criminal Court to restore possession to a person wrongfully dispossessed, when such dispossession forms part of the offence for which the accused are convicted. He further submits that the trial Court and the Revision Court failed to appreciate the settled position of law, that once unlawful dispossession is proved and a conviction follows, the Court is duty-bound to consider restoration of possession to the aggrieved party. The trial Court erred in relying upon a Patwari/Tehsildar report, which was ambiguous and failed to clarify the exact measurement of possession. The trial Court, as well as the revisional Court, erred in not appreciating the map presented by the petitioner along with her application under Section 456 of Cr.P.C. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the impugned order. 6. The trial Court and the revisional Court have found that both the parties were given equal possession of 31x67 sq. ft. area by the civil Court. However, as per the report received from the Tehsildar/Patwari, in the present situation, both the parties do not have possession of 31x67 sq. ft. area, rather the respondent party is shown to be in possession of 26x71 sq. ft. area and the petitioner is shown to be in possession of 16x71 sq. ft. area. Also, it was found that the respondent party has constructed a shop on the said land and has given it on rent to someone else. Thus, it is clear that the possession of both the parties is not in accordance with the decree passed by the civil court. In such a situation, it is not possible to give actual possession to the petitioner without getting the demarcation done. Moreover, in the criminal case, in which the respondent party was convicted, there is no clear measurement of the land mentioned in it. Therefore, as it was not possible to give possession to the petitioner, his application was rejected. 7. Looking to the material available on record and also a detailed examination of the impugned order passed by the 5 revisional Court does not reveal any illegality or irregularity in it, nor is the said order improper. The said impugned order of the revision Court is legal; there is no illegality, therefore, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the order impugned. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) H.L. Sahu Judge