1 CRMP No. 3183 of 2024 2025:CGHC:56064-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3183 of 2024 1 - Naveen Bhai Patel S/o Late Ranchhod Bhai Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Green Chowk Kunal Hotel Police Station Mohan Nagar Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandu Lal Patel S/o Ranchhod Bhai Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Shiv Shakti Visnagar Road Unjha, Dist. Mahesana Gujrat, Hall - Green Chowk Kunal Hotel Police Station Mohan Nagar Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mohan Nagar Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Purushottam Bhai Patel S/o Mohan Bhai Patel Aged About 64 Years R/o Village And Post Muktupur, Police Station Unjha District Mahesana Gujrat Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. GA For respondent No.2. : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 2 CRMP No. 3183 of 2024 Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 18/11/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 for the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition by quashing the charge-sheet and entire proceeding of the Criminal Case No. RCC/8050/2020, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.02.2016, the complainant, Purushottambhai Patel, submitted a written report stating that his father and his two uncles, being three brothers, had effected a family partition in the year 1989–1990, wherein out of the total 14 acres of ancestral agricultural land, each brother received 3.50 acres, along with one shop and two residential rooms situated near the hotel at Station Chowk. The complainant was allotted 3.50 acres of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 252. As the complainant and his father had been residing at village Muktupur, District Mehsana (Gujarat) for the last about 35 years, his father had, for the purpose of looking after the land, executed a power of attorney in April 1982 in favour of his elder brother, Ranchhodbhai Patel. Subsequently, the complainant’s father decided to personally supervise the property and accordingly revoked the said power of attorney on 06.04.1984, and the revocation notice was duly communicated to Ranchhodbhai through an advocate. 3 CRMP No. 3183 of 2024 It is alleged that after such revocation, the complainant’s father remained the sole owner of the agricultural land situated at village Sikola Bhatha, bearing Khasra Nos. 252 and 296, admeasuring 3.50 acres. The complainant later came to know that Ranchhodbhai, in collusion with his sons, had prepared a forged general power of attorney by affixing fake photographs and forged signatures of the complainant, and, on the strength of such forged document, had sold away the complainant’s land to various persons. Upon inquiry from the office of the Patwari, the complainant learned that his land had been illegally sold in several small portions, and the purchasers had got the names mutated in the revenue records. The complainant obtained certified copies of certain sale deeds and was shocked to find that the photographs and signatures affixed on the power of attorney used for the execution of those sale deeds did not belong to him. He thereafter obtained the disputed documents and produced them before the authorities for investigation. The complainant further stated that he had earlier lodged complaints on 15.07.2011 before the Superintendent of Police, Durg, and again on 19.06.2013 before the City Superintendent of Police, Durg, but on both occasions the matter was not taken seriously and no offence was registered. During subsequent investigation, the thumb impressions and signatures appearing on the alleged forged power of attorney were sent for forensic examination and were found to be different from the genuine thumb impressions and signatures of the complainant, thereby confirming document forgery. The investigation revealed that deceased 4 CRMP No. 3183 of 2024 Ranchhodbhai Patel, along with accused Naveen Patel and accused Chandulal Patel, had fraudulently executed multiple sale deeds in respect of different portions of land carved out of Khasra No. 252, in favour of several persons including Anil Simre, Mukesh, Sapendra Kumar, Rimyan Singh, Jaspal Singh, Braj Kishore Sharma, Inderpal and others. On the basis of the forged general power of attorney, the accused persons had dishonestly sold various portions of the complainant’s land and unlawfully obtained financial gain. Upon finding sufficient evidence against accused Naveen Patel and accused Chandulal Patel, they were arrested on 06.12.2020; however, in view of the anticipatory bail orders passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in MCRCA No. 439/2019 dated 28.03.2019 and MCRCA No. 933/2019 dated 10.07.2019, they were released on bail upon producing the orders and furnishing sureties. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet bearing No. 334/2020 dated 09.12.2020 was filed before the competent court against accused Naveen Kumar Patel and Chandulal Patel. Since Ranchhodbhai Patel had expired, no challan was filed against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who are the sons of deceased Ranchhodbhai are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is urged that the entire transaction in question was exclusively between the deceased co-accused Ranchhodbhai and the complainant, and the petitioners have no nexus whatsoever with the alleged execution or misuse of the power of attorney dated 15.03.2000. The petitioners were neither parties nor witnesses to the said document 5 CRMP No. 3183 of 2024 and had no role in any sale transaction arising therefrom. He further submits that after completion of investigation, a closure report was filed on 16.07.2016 in Case No. 31/2016, which remained pending for orders. However, without obtaining permission from the concerned Court, and merely on the basis of oral instructions of superior police officers, the police proceeded to conduct further investigation and filed a charge- sheet, which is impermissible in law. The report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, pursuant to the order dated 20.02.2023 in CRMP No. 718/2020, also confirms that although the closure report had been filed, no judicial order was ever passed prior to the filing of the subsequent charge-sheet. It is submitted that the reopening of investigation without leave of the Court is arbitrary and contrary to settled legal principles. Even in the so-called further investigation, no material has surfaced connecting the petitioners with the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant, submit that sufficient material exists on record to prima facie indicate the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences. It is contended that the power of attorney in question was forged and used for effecting the sale of the complainant’s property, and the petitioners, acting in concert with the deceased co-accused, played an active role in facilitating the transaction. It is further submitted that the subsequent investigation was conducted in exercise of statutory powers under 6 CRMP No. 3183 of 2024 Section 173(8) CrPC, and the filing of the charge-sheet is legally sustainable. It is urged that the allegations raise serious questions requiring full-fledged trial, and therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds that the primary allegation centres around the alleged forging of a general power of attorney and the consequential sale of parcels of land originally belonging to the complainant. The material on record, however, indicates that the petitioners were neither signatories nor attesting witnesses to the disputed power of attorney, nor were they beneficiaries of any sale transaction arising therefrom. Even as per the investigation papers, no incriminating material had emerged against the petitioners at the relevant time. 7. The material collected during the subsequent investigation also does not disclose any overt act or participation of the petitioners in the preparation, execution, utilisation, or facilitation of the alleged forged power of attorney. No document indicates that they were privy to, or in any manner involved in, the sale transactions executed on the strength of the disputed instrument. The counsel for the respondent No2/Complainant failed to point out or place any record that the present petitioners have executed any sale-deed by using the alleged power of 7 CRMP No. 3183 of 2024 attorney. 8. Even assuming the entire supplementary material on record to be true at its face value, it fails to attribute to the petitioners any role that would constitute the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The investigation does not reveal any act of forgery, impersonation, inducement, deception, financial gain, or conspiracy attributable to them. In absence of any such material, the very substratum required to prosecute the petitioners is lacking. 9. The Supreme Court has consistently held that where uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. Tested on this anvil, the allegations against the petitioners, even if taken at their highest, do not satisfy the threshold necessary to prosecute them for offences relating to forgery, cheating, fraud, or criminal conspiracy. 10. In the present matter, the gravamen of the accusation pertains exclusively to the conduct of the deceased co-accused Ranchhodbhai and his son. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioners who are merely the sons of the deceased were involved in the preparation or use of the alleged forged general power of attorney, or that they derived any benefit from the impugned sale transactions. In absence of any demonstrable nexus, the continuation of criminal 8 CRMP No. 3183 of 2024 proceedings against them would be wholly unwarranted. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that allowing the prosecution to proceed against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would serve no useful purpose. 12. Consequently, the CRMP is allowed. The FIR, charge-sheet No. 334/2020 dated 09.12.2020, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. RCC/8050/2020, insofar as they pertain to the present petitioners, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/-Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Bhilwar