1 2025:CGHC:33958-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 339 of 2022 Nehram Khunte S/o Bhadesh Ram Khunte Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Than Khamhariya, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, P.S. Bori, District- Durg (C.G.) 2. Awadh Ram Patel S/o Gend Singh Patel Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Tekapar, Tahsil Dhamdha District- Durg (C.G.) 3. Suresh Kumar Patel S/o Peela Ram Patel Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Khilourakala, Police Station Dhamdha District- Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.18 18:50:26 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 46 of 2019 registered at Police Station Bori, District Durg (C.G.) (which is part of Annexure P/1) and also quash the criminal proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Durg (C.G.) bearing Criminal Case No. 7543 of 2020, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, a written report filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner on 09.08.2018 before the Police Station/respondent No. 1 alleging therein that there has been partition took place in his family in the year 1989, in which the disputed property in question came into his share, over which his name was recorded in the revenue record. It has been alleged that when he went to take out the revenue record of the said land, he came to know that the said land has been recorded in the name of respondent No. 3, when he took information from the present Patwari, he informed that the manipulation in the revenue record has been done in the year 2002 by the-than Patwari (petitioner). It was alleged that the petitioner intentionally and illegally removed his name from revenue records, as because earlier also his son, namely, Pawan Kumar had made a complaint against the petitioner, thus he prayed for registration for FIR for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 3 of the IPC. On the basis of the complaint, the Police registered FIR against the petitioner on 01.06.2019 as Crime No. 46 of 2019 and subsequently investigation was made and charge-sheet was filed. Subsequently, on the filing of final report, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, the Criminal Case No. 7543 of 2020 was registered and the same is pending consideration for the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the respondent No. 2 in conspiracy with the respondent No. 3, which is evident from the fact that it has been alleged by the complainant that the petitioner fraudulently removed his name from revenue record and entered the name of respondent No. 3. In fact, the respondent No. 3 happens to be the family member of respondent No. 2, which shows false implication. He further submits that the complainant and his son Pawan Kumar are in habit of implicating the petitioner in criminal case, which is evident from the written report itself, where he states that earlier his son made complaint against the petitioner. The complaint made by his son, the petitioner was discharged by the learned trial Court to which an appeal against acquittal has been filed by Pawan Kumar, which is registered as CRMP No. 2632 of 2019, which was arise out of Complaint Case No. 1090 of 2012, in which the petitioner was discharged by the order dated 05.10.2019. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present FIR which is made by the complainant is purely with a purpose to falsely implicate the petitioner which is evident from the fact that as per the allegation, the manipulation in the revenue record was 4 taken place in the year 2002 and during the investigation Panchnama was submitted by the Tahsildar after enquiring the revenue records, wherein which shows that in the year 2002 itself, the complainant had the knowledge of manipulation in the revenue records, but he remained silent and after 17 years, he filed the written complaint on 09.08.2018 to implicate the petitioner and thus, there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which also demonstrates false implication. He also contended that the petitioner has no benefit from making modification in the revenue records, he being a revenue authority, gave his duty on good faith and if the complainant was aggrieved by the change in the revenue record, he has a remedy to correct the same by filing an application under Sections 115 and 116 of Land Revenue Code, hence, merely because there is an error happened to be in good faith, the same cannot attract criminal action, where there was no intention or knowledge. He would submit that the petitioner is a Patwari and his act done in good faith, is protected under provision of Land Revenue Code. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the complainant made a written report on 09.08.2018, but in the revenue record is of 2011, the subject land appears in to the name of complainant himself. He further states that from perusal of entire charge-sheet, the ingredient of Sections 420, 467, 469 and 471 of the IPC is not attracted against the petitioner, even from the charge-sheet it is apparent that no loss whatsoever has caused to the complainant by change in the revenue record, he was peacefully till date is in possession of his property without any objection by anyone and the instant FIR is purely abuses of process of Court. Hence, this petition. 5 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in the present case charges have already been framed against the petitioner and five prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the learned trial Court and the trial is in progress. 8. We have perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in this petition. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that the charges have already been framed against the petitioner and five prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the learned trial Court and the trial is in progress, therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Further, there is no interim order passed in favour of the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on this ground alone. However, we hope and trust that the learned trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan