1 / 6 2025:CGHC:56029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3487 of 2025 1 - Taranjeet Singh Tuteja S/o Late Shri Kehar Singh Tuteja Aged About 66 Years (Wrongly Written As Taranjeet Singhaniya), (Aadhar No. 9103 0499 2609), R/o House No. 162, Ward No. 20, Naya Ganj, Near Gauri Shankar Mandir Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Anand Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 56 Years (Aadhar No. 2187 1713 3169), Presently R/o Mukut Nagar, Ward No. 26, Beladula Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Santosh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Fattechand Agrawal Aged About 70 Years (Aadhar No. 4375 1345 0749) R/o House No. 82, Daani Para, Ward No. 18, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Prithvipal Singhania S/o Late Prakash Chandra Agrawal Aged About 51 Years (Aadhar No. 8074 2288 1788) R/o House No. 75, Daani Para, Ward No. 18, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station- City Kotwali, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Tarun Beriwal S/o Late Shri Omprakash Beriwal Aged About 47 Years R/o Shrikrishna Kunj, Bhagwanpur, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.27 10:37:41 +0530 2 / 6 For Petitioners : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For State /Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of the instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- i. To pass an order/direction to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) to decide upon the Criminal Case (filing no.) 2758/2019 [Annexure P-3], initiated pursuant to the closure report no.119/13 dated 22.11.2013 in crime no.561/2012 dated 31.07.2012 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, in a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court. ii. To pass an order/direction to the Court of Sessions Judge, District-Raigarh (C.G.) to decide upon the Criminal Revision no. 43/2021 initiated pursuant to the aforesaid Criminal Case (filing no.) 2758/2019 [Annexure P-5], in a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court and to immediately send the original records of the aforesaid 3 / 6 Criminal Case to Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) for its adjudication. iii. To pass any other or such other orders in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem it fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant namely Gouri Shankar Beriwal, Natwarlal Beriwal, Poonam Chand Beriwal and Om Prakash Beriwal filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh & SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh against the petitioners No.3 & 4 namely Santosh Kumar Agrawal & Prtithvipal Singhania and other persons that they have entered into an agreement to sell the land of the complainant bearing Khasra Nos. 127/5 & 127/11, admeasuring respectively 0.199 Hectares and 0.398 Hectares, to one Taranjeet Singh Tuteja and Anand Kumar Agrawal i.e. the Petitioners No.1 & 2 herein. No action was taken on the aforesaid complaint by the police authorities, feeling aggrieved with the same one of the complainants Natwar Agrawal filed a writ petition bearing WPCR No.69/2012 before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to enquire into the matter. Pursuant to the said order an FIR bearing Crime No.561/2012 was registered on 31/07/2012. The said registration of FIR was challenged in review petition No.138/2012 which was dismissed by order dated 14/09/2012. The said order dated 14/09/2012 was subject of challenge in a writ appeal bearing W.A. No.1068/2012 and this Court by 4 / 6 order dated 18/10/2012 allowed the said writ appeal and remanded back the matter for a decision afresh on merits. 4. Thereafter, a closure report dated 22/11/2013 was filed before the concerned Magistrate for closure of offence. Thereafter, on 01/08/2014 the closure report was placed before the CJM, Raigarh wherein notices were issued to the complainant and I.O. for recording their statements. When they did not appear, a bailable warrant was issued against the complainant and finally on 18/11/2014 the complainant entered appearance. On 19/06/2015 in the aforesaid closure proceedings the evidence of complainants were recorded. The rest of the complainants refused to give their evidence as such the case was posted for consideration of the closure report. Thereafter, the CJM by order dated 15/03/2021 directed the police authorities to re-investigate the matter and file final report. The said order dated 15/03/2021 was challenged by the complainant Omprakash Agrawal in a revision bearing Criminal Revision No.43/2021 before the Sessions Court, Raigarh. 5. In the year 2020 another complainant Natwarlal Beriwal on the same set of allegations filed second FIR bearing Crime No.557/2020 after lapse of 08 years. The said filing of FIR was also challenged by the petitioners in WPCR No.74/2021 wherein the notices were issued. Thereafter, the police investigated the matter and filed their closure report on 04/08/2021 in the Second FIR, pursuant to which the writ petition WPCR No.74/2021 was disposed of. Thereafter, on 03/03/2025 qua the closure report a criminal case (filing no.) 810/2025 was registered before the CJM, Raigarh. Both the closure reports are pending consideration 5 / 6 before the CJM, however, the proceedings of the aforesaid cases could not be completed. Hence this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that despite filing a closure report No.119/13 dated 22/11/2013 by the police authorities in a crime number of the year 2012, the proceedings have not been concluded for the past more than 13 years and the threat of arrest looms large at the behest of the complainants, which amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the instant petition may be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would object to the first prayer made by the petitioner and would submit that first of all Sessions Court will decide the criminal revision thereafter the JMFC will decide the matter, therefore, the only direction may be given to the Sessions Court to decide the Criminal Revision No.43/2021. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 9. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and in view of the submission made by learned State counsel that the direction can be given only to the Sessions Judge to decide the Criminal Revision No.43/2021, learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh is directed to decide the Criminal Revision No.43/2021 arising out of Criminal Case (filing no.) 2758/2019 expeditiously preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 6 / 6 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law on its own merits. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant CRMP stands disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu