1 / 4 2025:CGHC:55805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3457 of 2025 Anup Kar S/o Late Shri Animesh Kar Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No. 14 Jhagrakhand Road, Manendragarh, P.O. & Tehsil Manendragarh, District- M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Vedpraksh Singh S/o Late Shri Shyamnath Singh Aged About 78 Years R/o Ward No. 22 Raanpakherva, Manendragarh P.O. & Tehsil- Manendragarh, District- M.C.B. (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 04-08- 2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District MCB., whereby the petitioner have filed the criminal revision against the order dated 25-03-2025 passed by learned ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.09 11:13:54 +0530 2 / 4 CJM., Manendragarh District MCB. In unregistered complaint case has been dismissed and affirmed the order of learned court below. 2. The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that a case Civil Suit No.-10 A/01 Shriram Singh vs. Smt. Savita Kar etc. was instituted in the court of Civil Judge Class-2 Manendragarh and a claim was presented for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land Khasra No.-341, in which later Khasra No.-157 was also amended as suit land, whereas Shriram Singh was not the owner of the said land. The said suit was accepted which has been dismissed by this court in appeal. In the said original suit, the respondent has presented an affidavit in chief stating that Khasra No.-157 belongs to the plaintiff Shriram, whereas Vedprakash himself has sold the land of Khasra No.- 157/1, that is, he knew that he himself was the owner of Khasra No.-157 and Shriram Singh was not the owner, despite this, a false affidavit was presented by him in the court, hence a case under Sections 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. The complaint was presented in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate which has been dismissed by order dated 25/03/2025. Feeling aggrieved with the same a Criminal Revision No.31/2025 was preferred which too has been dismissed. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order of both the Courts below are bad in law as the false affidavit has been filed before the Civil Court, therefore, the criminal liability can arise independently of the civil dispute and the Criminal Court must investigate whether the ingredients of Sections 420 & 468 IPC are made 3 / 4 out not not. She would next contend that the pendency of civil litigation is not a shield against the criminal prosecution where fabrication or perjury has been alleged and the criminal complaint must not be dismissed at the threshold which on its face discloses a cognizable offence. She would therefore, pray that the instant petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of the documents would show that there is a dispute between the parties for a land, therefore, it is a civil dispute and the affidavit has been filed by the Respondent, whether the affidavit is false or not it will be decided by the trial Court on merits and if it is found that the affidavit is false, the the Court can proceed under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. 6. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. The dispute raised by the petitioner pertains essentially to questions of title, possession, and partition of ancestral property, which are admittedly matters falling within the domain of civil adjudication. The allegations sought to be projected as criminal are inseparably intertwined with a long-standing civil dispute, and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any ingredients of the offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPC so as to warrant criminal prosecution. 7. The learned Courts below have rightly held that the nature of the controversy, the evidence relied upon, and the documents forming the 4 / 4 basis of the complaint indicate a purely civil dispute for which appropriate remedy lies before the competent civil forum. It is well- settled that criminal proceedings cannot be invoked to settle civil claims, nor can the process of criminal law be used to exert pressure in matters where civil rights are yet to be determined. The refusal of the learned CJM to register the complaint and the affirmation of such view by the revisional Court, therefore, suffer from no illegality, impropriety, or perversity. 8. Accordingly, as the matter does not disclose any criminal offence and is squarely covered by settled principles governing the distinction between civil and criminal disputes, the present petition is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed at this juncture. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file further petition if cause of action arises in future. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu