1 2025:CGHC:61212 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3664 of 2025 1 - Harendra Dubey And Anr. S/o Kedarnath Dubey Aged About 56 Years R/o Plot No. A 29, Vidya Vihar, Nehru Nagar, (West) Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg C.G. (Respondent No. 3) 2 - Ajay Dalmiya S/o Madan Lal Dalmiya Aged About 55 Years R/o 38/5, Nehru Nagar, Old Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg C.G. (Respondent No. 4) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Savita Jena W/o Vijay Kumar Jena Aged About 54 Years R/o House No. 159/f Camp 01, Sai Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg C.G. (Complainant) 2 - Arun Chouhan S/o Balkishan Chouhan Aged About 48 Years R/o L2/172, B.D.D.A., Flat Kalkaji, New Delhi-19 (As Mentioned In The Complaint) (Respondent No. 1) 3 - Sushil Singh S/o Sher Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Flat- 1224, G H 5 And 7, D D A Flat, West Vihar, New Delhi- 89. (As Mentioned In Complaint) (Respondent No. 2) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Adv. For respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 16.12.2025 1) By way of instant Petition filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Petitioner prays for quashment of the 2 impugned order dated 14-07-25 (Annexure P/1) passed in Criminal Revision no. 32/2025, passed by the learned 7th Additional Session Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G) arising out of order dated 07-01-25 (Annexure P/2) passed in MJC Cri/245/2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District-Durg (C.G) against the petitioners which is apparently abuse of process of law and bad in law. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the impugned revisional order suffers from an apparent inconsistency in narration of facts. It is submitted that paragraphs 3 of the order contain a factual discussion relating to an alleged monetary transaction of ₹15,00,000/-, which does not form part of the subject matter of the present revision. In contrast, the latter half of the order, including the reasoning and operative portion, the property-related dispute arising out of the alleged sale deeds and layout issues. Learned counsel submits that the inclusion of the narration relating to the ₹15,00,000/- transaction in the initial part of the order, without any clarification or segregation, has resulted in confusion in the factual foundation of the order. It is therefore submitted that the said inconsistency be appropriately noted and clarified. 3) I have learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of the revisional Court. 4) The impugned revisional order reveals an apparent inconsistency in narration of facts inasmuch as paragraphs 3 of the order advert to allegations relating to a monetary transaction of ₹15,00,000/-, which form no part of the subject matter of the present revision. However, the latter half of the order, including the reasoning and the operative portion, correctly examines and decides the issues arising out of the property dispute pertaining to the alleged sale deeds and layout. The Revisional Court failed to exclude or rectify the irrelevant discussion relating to 3 the ₹15,00,000/- transaction, thereby rendering the order confused and internally inconsistent in its factual foundation. 5) In view of the apparent inconsistency in the factual narration of the impugned revisional order, it is ordered that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Revisional Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed in Criminal Revision No. 32/2025 by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) is hereby quashed. 6) The matter is remitted back to the Revisional Court to decide the revision afresh, strictly in accordance with law. The Revisional Court shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 7) The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti