1 2025:CGHC:4846-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 322 of 2025 Shivanand Giri S/o Tarik Giri Aged About 34 Years Caste - Goswami, Occupation - Service (Patwari) R/o Porda, Police Station And Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Munudai W/o Late Nankiram Aged About 75 Years R/o Baroud, Police Station Gharghoda, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.29 10:32:46 +0530 2 for the respondent / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned FIR Crime no. 87/2022 (Annexure P/1) registered at Police Station Gharghoda, District- Raigarh (C.G.) u/s 420, 467, 468, 469, 472, 120-B, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the complainant Munudai Kewat is a recorded owner of Khasra no. 775, 776/2 total area 2.024 Hectare which has been situated at village Kaya, tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.), she has lodged a written complaint on 09/02/2022 with the allegation that when she went to the Tahsil office Gharghoda, she came to know that in her place someone else has sold the land of the aforesaid Khasra to one Suraj Nayak S/o Krishnachand Nayak on dated 04/01/2022 in which the name of the witnesses are Rinku Yadav and False Singh and on the basis of the said allegation, though in the written FIR she has mentioned the name of Halka Patwari Ram Singh Choudhary but the aforesaid name of Ram Singh Choudhary has been struck down and in place of Ram Singh Choudhary, the name of Shivanand Giri has been mentioned. Though, the FIR has been registered on the basis of said complaint dated 08/02/2022 at police station as a Crime No. 87/2022 on dated 27/03/2022 against the 4 persons including the 3 present applicant and after knowing about the aforesaid fact the present applicant has got anticipatory bail from the this Court in MCRCA No. 518/2022 in relation to crime no. 87/2022 and inspite of the fact that the petitioner has got the anticipatory bail in the present crime no. 87/2022 but after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the other co-accused persons showing the petitioner absconding. 4. From the charge-sheet in Crime No. 87/2022 which has been filed after due investigation by the Thana police Gharghoda, not a single material has been collected against the petitioner and if the entire charge-sheet has been taken as it is, prima facie any offence against the petitioner cannot be made out. Moresoever from the mere perusal of the written FIR it is clear that the name of the Ram Singh Choudhary who has issued all the relevant papers which is a part of the charge-sheet and the name has been mentioned by the complainant but the aforesaid name has been struck (cut) in the written FIR and in the place of the said Ram Singh Choudhary the name of the petitioner has been incorporated and on the basis of the said action the prosecution agency wants to file the supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner but till date the supplementary charge-sheet has not been filed. The petitioner earlier after registration of the offence filed a petitioner before this Hon'ble with a prayer to issue direction to the state authorities to conduct the investigation fairly, impartially, transparently and objectively manner by considering 4 the documentary evidence and electronic records produce by the petitioner in the instant petition with respect to Crime No. 86/2022 and 87/2022 registered by Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) and take appropriate punitive action against the culprit person of the crimes but the same was dismissed vide order dated 04/08/2023 passed in WPCR no. 592/2022. Prior to registration of the offence when he came to know about the issue of the fake registry of the land and the same has been informed to the learned Tahsildar Gharghoda by the petitioner vide letter dated 08/01/2022. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR of Crime No. 87/2022 is based on the written complaint lodged by the respondent no. 2 in which after striking down the name of concerned patwari who is alleged to be issued the relevant documents which is required before the execution of the sale deed but instead of asking anything from the concerned patwari, the police has registered FIR fir against the present applicant. Though, if the FIR as well as the material collected in the said Crime No. 87/2022 is taken on its face value, prima facie, offence against the applicant cannot be made out. During the course of the investigation the prosecution agency has recorded the statement of the purchaser namely Suraj and according to him he asked with the present applicant about the description of the land recorded in whose name in the revenue records, though, the said Suraj has never asked from the applicant the whereabouts of 5 description of the land and recorded in whose name but if the said statement is taken as it is, the same also does not constitute an offence against the applicant. So, registration of the offence against the applicant is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, the prosecution agency inspite of the fact that the applicant in compliance of the order of this court furnished the bail bond before the concerned police station and till date the supplementary charge-sheet has not been filed against the applicant and in the meanwhile other accused persons against whom the charge-sheet has been filed, they have been acquitted from the trial in crime no. 87/2022 and looking to the material which has been collected during the course of the investigation by the prosecution agency in relation with the crime no. 87/2022 coupled with the written complaint in which it clearly appears that the name of the Ram Singh Choudhary has been struck down and in place of the Ram Singh Choudhary, the name of the present applicant has been added though, he is not involved in the issuance of any kind of the documents which are required for registration of the sale deed. Even it is not a case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been connected with other co- accused persons in relation to transfer of the land of Munudai to Suraj. So registration of the offence against the applicant is clear abuse of the process of law and the same cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. Since past more than 2 years after registration of the offence on the basis of one concocted report the police has 6 constantly harassed and humiliated the petitioner and till date not able to collect any material against the petitioner. 6. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General opposes the prayer for quashing of the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 87/2022 and submits that the petitioner herein was absconding while the investigation against the co-accused was done and further the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Dharamjaigarh filed an application on 31.01.2023 regarding permission to present charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. against the absconding accused Shivanand Giri in Case No. 87/2022 for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 120(B), 34, 201 IPC. Later, the charge-sheet is yet to be filed against the petitioner and the investigation is yet to be concluded. The co- accused who were charge-sheeted were put to trial and have been acquitted by the trial Court. The petitioner cannot take the benefit of acquittal order of the Court, as no charge-sheet was filed against him as the same was awaited under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioner is pre-mature at this stage and thus, the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that though the co- accused persons have been acquitted in the crime in question, 7 but so far as present petitioner is concerned, from the application filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dharamjaigarh on 31.01.2023, it appears that the present petitioner was absconding during the investigation held against the co-accused and further, permission to present supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. against the absconding accused / petitioner Shivanand Giri in Case No. 87/2022 for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 120(B), 34, 201 IPC was sought by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dharamjaigarh, but perusal of the records goes to show that charge-sheet is yet to be filed against the present petitioner and investigation is yet to be concluded. 9. In view of the same, the present petition is dismissed on the ground that it has been filed at a pre-mature stage as the investigation with respect to the present petitioner is still pending and the same has to be concluded and taken to its logical end. 10. The Investigating Officer is at liberty to file a Police Report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. [Now Section 193(3) of the BNSS] against the present petitioner, before the competent Court, in accordance with law. 11. The Director General of Police, Raipur, Chhattisgarh is directed to call for an explanation from the Investigating Officer as to why he did not submit a police report against the petitioner under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., as there was an observation made in the 8 Police Report submitted against the co-accused person that the appellant was absconding though, it has been alleged that he was on anticipatory bail. It is stated that the petitioner has already furnished personal bond on 02.04.2024. 12. The DGP, Raipur, Chhattisgarh shall send a report with regard to the same through the Registrar General of this Court, who shall place the same before us for perusal in our Chambers, within a period of four weeks. 13. The Registrar (Judicial) as well as the State Counsel shall send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Raipur, Chhattisgarh forthwith for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet