1 2025:CGHC:59657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3560 of 2025 1 - Pranadhar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Atmanand Agrawal Aged About 74 Years R/o Agrawalpara, Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dwarika Satnami S/o Shri Budhari Satnami Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kaudiya, Tahsil Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gopal Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kaudiya, Tahsil Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bimla Bai Baghel W/o Shyamcharan Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Kaudiya, Tahsil Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate through legal aid. For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Veerma Order on Board 09/12/2025 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 2 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.01.2024 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 06/2024 which is arising out of order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in unregistered criminal case, whereby the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Bemetara without considering the material available on record has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order of learned trial Court, which is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner constituted the revision petition in briefly is that the petitioner filed complaint U/s. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court alleging that the he has owner holder in respect of land bearing hasra no. 84/1 area 2.04 hectare which is situated at village Kaudiya, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh from which he was purchased the land area 1.31 hectare from Naresh Das son of Nemdas in the year 2002 since then he was peaceful in possession over the said land and rest land area 0.73 hectare khasrano. 84/1 is remains which has recorded his name in the revenue record since year 2005 and thereafter, the then Halka Patwari Gopal Sahu has prepared forged document and wrongly been registered in the revenue record in the name of the Bimla Bai over the land area 0.40 hectare in instead khasra no. 84/1 3 area 0.73 hectare and thereafter, the petitioner constituted an application before the learned trial Court below for correction of said land.no. 84/1 is remains which has recorded his name in the revenue record since year 2005 and thereafter, the then Halka Patwari Gopal Sahu has prepared forged document and wrongly been registered in the revenue record in the name of the Bimla Bai over the land area 0.40 hectare in instead khasra no. 84/1 area 0.73 hectare and thereafter, the petitioner constituted an application before the learned trial Court below for correction of said land. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.01.2024 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge Bemetara District- Bemetara C.G. in criminal revision no. 06/2024 is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence is liable to be set-aside. She further submits that the learned court without considering the material available on record to adopt the arbitrary manner dismissed the application is illegal. She further submits that there is no other effective remedy available or left for the said petitioner, save and except to approach to this Hon’ble Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The present petition is directed against the order whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal 4 Procedure, seeking a direction for registration of an offence and investigation against the respondent. 7. Upon examination of the record, it is evident that the petitioner alleged that the respondents, by adopting fraudulent means and acting in connivance, reduced the area of the petitioner’s land bearing Khasra No. 84/1 admeasuring 0.73 hectare, and caused forged and manipulated entries to be made in the revenue records, thereby causing wrongful loss to the petitioner. 8. The learned Magistrate, after considering the allegations made in the application, the police inquiry report submitted by Police Station Nawagarh, and the material available on record, recorded a clear finding that the dispute primarily pertains to revenue entries and clerical errors in revenue records. The learned Magistrate further observed that the nature of the dispute is purely civil, and from the application filed by the petitioner, no cognizable criminal offence is prima facie made out. 9. The learned Magistrate also noted that no material was produced by the petitioner to establish, at the initial stage, the commission of any serious criminal offence warranting police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate rightly exercised discretion and declined to issue directions for investigation. 10. This Court finds that the learned Magistrate has passed a reasoned and well-considered order, after proper application of mind to the facts of the case and the law governing the scope of 5 Section 156(3) CrPC. It is well settled that the power under Section 156(3) CrPC is discretionary and is not to be exercised mechanically, particularly where the dispute appears to be civil in nature and does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. 11. Learned Revisional Court has also rightly affirmed the order passed by the Learned Magistrate and rejected the criminal revision vide order dated 05.01.2024. 12. No illegality, perversity, or material irregularity has been pointed out which would warrant interference by this Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and calls for no interference. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima