1 2025:CGHC:8789-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 643 of 2025 Bishu Mandal S/o Khudiram Mandal Aged About 30 Years R/o Banglapara, Iti Road, Narayanpur, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Narayanpur, (C.G.) 2 - Shri Pulin Mandal S/o Late Shri Sheetal Mandal Aged About 55 Years R/o Dnk Colony, Narayanpur, District- Narayanpur, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.02.21 10:50:28 +0530 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the FIR and Charge sheet (Annexure P-1) and order of cognizance and entire criminal proceedings bearing criminal case no...., and order dated 22/03/23 of framing of charge and memo of charge dated 22/03/23(ANNEXURE P/2 colly) and the order dated 17/10/24 passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision Case no. 06/23 passed by the Learned Additional Session Juddge (ANNEXURE P/3) in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that complainant/respondent no.2 namely Pulin Mandal filed one written Complaint before Police Station Narayanpur, C.G. on 13/08/21 alleging that the present petitioner has entered into an agreement with the son of the complainant of selling land of Ranu Adhikari situated at Ashram Road DNK , Colony Khasra no.612/2 rakba 0.5670 Hectare at the rate of 10 dismilfor 1 lakh 55 thousand Rupees. On 4/02/2020 wife of the complainant namely Saraswati Mandal has given a cheque amounting Rupees 3 lakh 50 thousand from her savings account at Punjab national bank, and on the same day from the joint account of the complainant and his wife, another cheque amounting 1 lakh was given to the petitioner as an earnest amount. Further, On 04/01/2021, another cheque amounting 1 lakh from the joint account was issued in favour of the petitioner. Moreover as per complaint, another 1 lakh in cash was given to the petitioner on demand for which the 3 complainant does not remember the date. From the entire transaction, about 7 lakh 50 thousand Rupees has been given to the petitioner and after repeated request for registration, complainant filed the written complaint and accordingly FIR was registered. The FIR was registered on 13/08/21, which clearly reflects that the petitioner has entered into an agreement for the sale of land and not registered the sale deed in favour of the complainants son and hence committed fraud. That during the investigation one agreement was seized from the complainant himself which is part of the Charge-sheet. On 31/10/21 charge- sheet was filed against the petitioner under Sec-420, 467,468 and sec-471 IPC. On 22/03/23 learned trial Court after hearing parties on charge, framed charges against the petitioner and also framed the memo of charge on the very day. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of FIR and filing of charge-sheet and continuance of case against the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case is contrary to the law applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, the offence under section 420 of IPC and or any other criminal offences is not made out present case is classic example of abuse of process of law. Mere refusal of the registration of sale deed cannot be said to be criminal act and the complainant is giving the criminal colour to the civil dispute. The complainant has entered into an agreement to sale of the land and in the said agreement itself it has been mention that the said land belongs to 4 one Ranu Adhikari and for which the permission from the Collector is required for selling of the land and thereafter the sale deed be registered in favour of the complainant and therefore there is no fraud or offences on the part of the petitioner, as from the first day the complainant and his entire family was aware that the petitioner was not the owner of the land and therefore no offences has been committed by the petitioner. Apart from the mere refusal for the registration of the sale deed would not attract the offences of cheating or any other criminal charges and the present FIR and complaint has been made only to create the pressure over the petitioner and also to usurp the remaining amounts payable as per the agreement and in order to avoid the filing of the civil suit, the complainant has adopted the arm twisting manner which is not permissible in the eye of law. Fom the records it is clear that nothing was hidden from the complainant and just to harass the petitioner present FIR has been made, no performance of the promise, if any could not attract criminal liability no instance of any kind of deceit is reflected ever by the FIR and the agreement produced by the complainant. 5. Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 31.10.2021 filed by the Police Station, Narayanpur in Crime No. 129/21 against the petitioner under the charges of Section 420, 467, 468 and Section 471 of the IPC along with order of cognizance dated 22.03.2023 and submits that since the charge- 5 sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed and trial has started, this petition has virtually become infructuous and as such, the same may be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed against the petitioner and trial has started and two witnesses have already been recorded, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter as the FIR as well as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner on which, charges have been framed against the petitioner. Hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end. 8. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet