1 2025:CGHC:56284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3507 of 2025 Shiv Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shri Udhau Prasad Pandey Aged About 80 Years R/o B-17, Mahesh Colony, Thana- Pulgaon Naka, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Manish Kumar Pandey. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19/11/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying for registration of FIR against the 2 proposed accused persons namely Kundan Singh, Prakash Singh and Praveen Singh Rajput. The application under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 has been rejected by the JMFC Bemetara, vide its order dated 13.08.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 46/2025 before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara C.G. which was also dismissed by the learned Revisional Court vide its order dated 26.09.2025 mechanically without conducting any investigation which is in contravention of the settled legal position and is a clear abuse of process of law. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS stating that he is retired professor from Government Digvijay College, Rajnandgaon and a senior citizen and a law-abiding person. Petitioner is the recorded and lawful owner and possessor of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 2073/55, area 0.032 hectare, situated at Village Kodibhat, Patwari Halka No. 35, Tahsil and District- Bemetara (C.G.) which stands duly mutated in his name in the revenue records by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 05.02.1986 executed in his favour by the lawful vendors- Dhanraj, Bhikamchand, Nemichand and Gyanchand, sons of Late Sumer Mal Paik/Jain. In the year 2018, accused persons namely Anand alias Amit Kumar, along with Kundan Singh, Prakash Singh, Praveen Singh and others, in collusion with officials of the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bemetara, and revenue functionaries 3 including the Patwari and the Lawgoon Clerk, with the intention to cause financial loss to the petitioner, fabricated revenue records and executed two sale deed dated 28.02.2018, one in favour of Manoj Kumar and Sanjay Thakur and other in favour of Kundan Singh Rajput, Prakash Singh Rajput, Praveen Singh Rajput. In the two sale deeds, the alleged consideration was mentioned as Rs. 9,04,000/- in one transaction and Rs. 17,00,000/- in another, purportedly paid through certain cheques drawn on Chhattisgah Rajya Gramin Bank, IDBI Bank, Bandhan Bank, Bank of Baroda, Dena Bank and HDFC Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court failed to appreciate that the petitioner’s complaint was not a mere property dispute but a clear case of criminal conspiracy and public document forgery, perpetrated through misuse of the official machinery. The revisional court also failed to consider that the petitioner had produced prima facie evidence including certified bank records, RTI responses, and altered revenue extracts establishing the commission of cognizable offences. He relied of Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 41 has held as under: 47. This Court in a composition of three learned Judges observed in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (supra) as follows: ‘16. In a given case, there may be allegations of abuse of process of law by converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, only with a view to pressurise 4 the accused. Similarly, in a given case the complaint itself on the face of it can be said to be barred by law. The allegations in the FIR/complaint may not at all disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such cases and in exceptional cases with circumspection, the High Court may stay the further investigation. However, at the same time, there may be genuine complaints/FIRs and the police/investigating agency has a statutory obligation/right/duty to enquire into the cognizable offences. Therefore, a balance has to be struck between the rights of the genuine complainants and the FIRs disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and the statutory obligation/duty of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences on the one hand and those innocent persons against whom the criminal proceedings are initiated which may be in a given case abuse of process of law and the process. However, if the facts are hazy and the investigation has just begun, the High Court would be circumspect in exercising such powers and the High Court must permit the investigating agency to proceed further with the investigation in exercise of its statutory duty under the provisions of the Code. Even in such a case the High Court has to give/assign brief reasons 5 why at this stage the further investigation is required to be stayed. The High Court must appreciate that speedy investigation is the requirement in the criminal administration of justice.’ 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the order passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is true and correct and neither suffers from any infirmity, illegality or perversity nor any jurisdictional error. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. On perusal of record, this Court has found that on 28.02.2018, two sale deeds were executed by the accused persons namely Anand alias Amit Kumar, one sale deed in the favour of Manoj Kumar and Sanjay Thakur and the other sale deed in favour of Kundan Singh Rajput, Prakash Singh Rajput, Praveen Singh Rajput. The learned JMFC, Bemetara, vide its order dated 13.08.2025 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 holding that the dispute was “civil in nautre” and no cognizable offence was made out. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision bearing No. 46/2025 before the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara. The learned Sessions Judge, vide its order dated 26.09.2025 rejected the criminal revision and affirmed the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Bemetara. 7. On perusal of record, this Court found that the sale deed was 6 executed on 28.02.2018 on the basis of B-1 and other documents of the land. Therefore, there is purely a civil dispute between the parties. A civil dispute under the colour of criminal proceedings refers to using criminal law to resolve what is fundamentally a civil matter, which this Court considers it an abuse of process of law. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Bemetara and affirmed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara vide its order dated 26.09.2025 is true in its letter and spirit. It is neither perverse nor suffers from any infirmity or illegality or jurisdictional error. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on merits. . Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima