1 2025:CGHC:8576-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 98 of 2025 Randeep Singh S/o Late Surjeet Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o C-402, Nilaya Apartments, Vip Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Surguja (C.G.). 2 - The Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. 3 - The Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 4 - The Naib Tahsildar, Ambikapur-2, District Surguja (C.G.). 5 - Police Station Ambikapur, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Nikhil Parakh, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble S hri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 19/02/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR of Crime No. 661 of 2024 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja for the offence under sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs in his writ petition: “(a) A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue calling for records pertaining to case of petitioner from respondent concerned including the record of revenue authorities, as detailed in writ petition, for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if deem fit. (b) A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue constituting a Special Investigating Team in the matter for an inquiry in this regard in respect of the averments made by the petitioner in habendum of writ petition and also for the investigation in respect of involvement of petitioner in the alleged crime in question regarding which FIR No.0661/2024 dated 27.9.2024 registered with Police Station Ambikapur for the offence under Sections 318 (4), 336 (3), 338 and 340 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, has been registered, in order to protect the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner's case is of total innocence and impersonation by some other person of the petitioner and till the team is constituted in this regard and reaches to the conclusion of the involvement of the petitioner, protect the personal liberty of the petitioner by passing appropriate order on such terms as this Hon'ble Court in the peculiar factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice. (c). A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing the FIR No.0661/2024 dated 3 27.9.2024 registered with Police Station Ambikapur for the offence under Sections 318 (4), 336 (3), 338 and 340 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against petitioner in the peculiar factual matrix of the case. (d) A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing for Court monitored investigation in the matter, as not only this is the case of abuse of process of law and abuse of process of Court, but also of revenue Courts right from tip to the toe and also of this Hon'ble Court of obtaining an order purported to be claimed by the petitioner without there being any authorization in this regard and in the facts and circumstances of the case. (e) Cost of the proceedings. (f) Any other writs or directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case." 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.07.2021, an application has been made on behalf of the petitioner before the respondent No. 4/Nayab Tahsildar, Ambikapur for correction and mutation of his name in the revenue records of the land bearing Khasra No. 491/3, Area 7.932 hectares, situated at village Krantiprakashpur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja. Since the respondent No. 4 has not considered the application of the petitioner, he moved a petition under section 8 read with section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue for a direction to the Revenue Authority to decide his application expeditiously. Vide order dated 20.10.2021, in case No. M/07/R/B-121/143/2021, the Board of Revenue has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent No. 4/Tahsildar Ambikapur to correct/mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue record of Khasra No. 491/3, Area 7.932 4 hectares of Village Krantiprakashpur. Despite the order, passed by the Board of Revenue on 20.10.2021, when his name has not been mutated in the revenue record of the land of said khasra number, he filed a WPC No. 4196 of 2022 before this Court, which was came up for hearing on 28.09.2022 and the learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner, with the direction to the respondent No. 4 to comply with the order dated 20.10.2021, passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur and directed to decide the application of the petitioner within a period of three months from receipt of a copy of that order, in accordance with law. 3. When the petitioner approached before the respondent No. 4/Tahsildar, Ambikapur along with a copy of order dated 28.09.2022, passed in WPC No. 4196 of 2022, the respondent No.4 passed its order on 20.03.2023 and hold that the land of Khasra No. 491/3, Area 7.932 hectares of Village Krantiprakashpur is recorded in the revenue record as Bade Jhaad Ka Jungle in the record of Surguja Settlement, and as per the existing law, the name of the petitioner cannot be mutated, but since the petitioner is in possession of 0.920 hectare of the land of said khasra number, he is entitled to get his name mutated only with respect to 0.920 hectare of the land, and has directed to mutate his name in the revenue record to that extent. 4. When the suspicion has been raised in the order dated 20.10.2021, allegedly passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, in case No. M/07/R/B-121/143/2021, the Collector, Surguja (Ambikapur) has conducted an inquiry, and in the inquiry, it was found that the order 5 dated 20.10.2021, allegedly passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, is obtained, on the basis of forged document and thereafter, the Board of Revenue has directed to take action against the erring persons, and in compliance of that, the F.I.R. has been lodged by the Nayab Tahsildar, Ambikapur, on which the present offence under sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has been registered against the petitioner, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has no concerned with any land and had not made any application before the Revenue Authority and had not filed any writ petition before this Court to obtain benefit for himself, but by using the name of the petitioner, someone else have filed the application as well as the writ petition and obtained order in his favour. When the petitioner has not filed any application before the Revenue Authorities, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence of cheating or any other offence. He would further submit that the petitioner himself is a victim of the offence and he prayed for a proper inquiry in the matter. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the impugned FIR against the petitioner may be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner has moved his application before the Tahsildar, Ambikapur for mutation of his name over the Khasra No. 491/3 Area 7.932 hectares, situated at Village Krantiprakashpur, which 6 was a government land and recorded as Bade Jhaad Ka Jungle in Surguja Settlement record and it is not his private land. By manipulating and forging the documents, he claimed the said land of his ownership and has moved application before the Tahsildar as well as Revenue Board and obtained an order in his favour by taking shelter of WPC No. 4196 of 2022. When the matter came into knowledge of the Collector, Surguja (Ambikapur), he made an enquiry and then the forgery came into knowledge of the authorities and thereafter the Board of Revenue have instructed to take action against the erring persons and ultimately the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. The FIR is registered on 27.09.2024 and it is in initial stage. There is allegation of forgery of documents by the petitioner, which needs detailed investigation and at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegation leveled against the petitioner is vague or no offence prima facie appears against him, therefore there is no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra an others, AIR OnLine 2021 SC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 23 held as under: “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/ or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the 7 High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/ FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific 8 spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 9. From perusal of the FIR, it reflected that the allegation against the petitioner is that the land of Khasra No. 491/3, Area 7.932 hectares of Village Krantiprakashpur, Tahsil Ambikapur is recorded in the revenue record of Surguja Settlement as Bade Jhaal Ka Jungle, but the petitioner has got an order from the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur for mutation of his name over the said land on the basis of the revenue record of 1977-78. 10. Considering that the subject land was recorded in Surguja Settlement Revenue Record in the name of State Government as ‘Bade Jhaal Ka Jungle’, mutation of the name of the father of the petitioner in the year 1977-78 is suspicious, which requires investigation. Further that, an order has been passed in favour of the petitioner on the petition under section 8 read with section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code filed before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur and also that WPC No. 4196 of 2022 filed before this Court, but the petitioner has denied that he has not filed those petitions and someone else has filed in the name of the petitioner. All these are serious allegations, which require investigation and the impugned FIR 9 has been lodged after the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur noticing the fraud committed by the petitioner. 11. Considering the nature of the allegation, the material produced with the writ petition and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any ground to interfere with the registration of the FIR and its investigation. 12. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved