1 2025:CGHC:13586-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 442 of 2023 Adman Lakda S/o Late Nestor Lakda Aged About 66 Years R/o Fundurdihari, Lakdapara, Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Of Police Station- AJAK , Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santkumar Cherva S/o Shriram Sai Cherva Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Manshukh, Police Station- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. 2 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of the charge sheet filed on the basis of FIR registered bearing Crime No. 32/2020 at Police Station, AJAK, Baikunthpur, District Koria as well as the criminal proceedings pending being Special Case (Atrocities) No. 6/2021, before the learned Special Judge, SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Baikunthpur, District Koria. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR against one Sanajy Agrawal in the year 2020, alleging that originally the land bearing Khasra No. 107/1 admeasuring area 3.667 hectares belonging to one Shanti Bai, which was purchased by Sanjay Agrawal in the name of one Rakesh Kumar and for obtaining the permission from the Collector, forged and fabricated report of Sub- Divisional OfÏcer has been presented before the Additional Collector. Thereafter on the basis of forged and fabricated report of S.D.O., on 21.03.2014, the Additional Collector has passed an order under Section 170 of Land Revenue Code, on the basis of which, the permission for execution of sale deed has been granted, but subsequently on 21.04.2014, the Additional Collector has recalled the order and restored the name of original owner i.e. Shanti Bai in the revenue records. Thereafter Sanjay Agrawal, for getting the benefits from the above land, again purchased the land in the name of complainant Santram (aboriginal tribe) from Shanti Bai and further after obtaining the diversion order from the OfÏce of Land Records, executed the various sale deeds, but till date Santram has not received any amount, thereby according to the complaint of Santram, the accused Sanjay Agrawal has committed fraud with Shanti Bai as well as with the complainant Santram. On the basis of complaint, the offences under Sections 294, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471, 374, 409, 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(h), 3 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been registered. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed in which the petitioner alongwith three other persons have been arrayed as an accused. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the then Additional Collector, Korea and in the year 2015, he was transferred to District Korba and now he has even superannuated. He had passed the order dated 21.03.2014 while discharging his duties as Presiding OfÏcer of the Court of Additional Collector and as such, he cannot be said to have acted in any unlawful manner. The FIR has been lodged after lapse of six years without there being any explanation. No offence, whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and the FIR, charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings deserve to be dismissed, so far it relates to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that after filing of the charge sheet and registration of criminal case against the petitioner alongwith other co- accused persons, charges have been also been framed and three of the prosecution witnesses have also been examined. The trial is in progress and as such, it would not be proper to interfere at this stage. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 01.03.2023 , while admitting this petition, had directed for issuance of notice to the respondent No. 1 and also passed an interim order to the effect that no adverse final order shall be passed by the trial Court concerned qua the petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed after completion of service of notice. 4 7. Since much time has elapsed and the trial is also in progress as three of the prosecution witnesses have been examined, it would not be proper to interfere with the trial at this stage and as such, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the pleas and submissions before the learned trial Court. 8. Consequently, interim order passed earlier also stands vacated. 9. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.03.23 14:09:27 +0530