1 2026:CGHC:6941-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 310 of 2026 1 - Smt. Santoshi Bai W/o Suresh Kumar Aged About 46 Years R/o H.No. 4/400, Gali No. 03, Near Ajanta Farnichar Bajrang Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), Pin- 492001 2 - Smt. Shivbai Sahu W/o Harishchandra Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o H. No. 6/2306, Gokul Nagar Shiv Mandir Chowk Naya Savera School Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin- 492001 3 - Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Mallu Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Near Life Worth Hospital, H. No. 3/721 Ward 16 Gangaram Nagar Ramkund Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin- 492001 4 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Mallu Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o H. No. 3/721 Gangaram Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin- 492001 5 - Bhava Bai Sahu W/o Mallu Ram Sahu Aged About 81 Years R/o Near Life Worth Hospital, H. No. 3/721 Ward 16 Gangaram Nagar Ramkund Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin- 492001 ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Gudhiyari District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shri Arvind Rahul S/o Late Shri T. Prasad Aged About 60 Years Assistant VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.10 11:31:56 +0530 2 Engineer, Municipal Corporation- Zone Vii, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 09/02/2026 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR No. 364/2025 dated 08.08.2025, registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), for the alleged offence under Section 292 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court contending that the impugned FIR is without authority of law, having been registered in contravention of the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 396 and 398 of the Act of 1956, is barred by limitation, and therefore constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. 2. The petitioners have filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with the following prayer:- “It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be 3 pleased to set aside/quash the FIR No. 364/2025 registered before the Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.) under 292 of Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act 1956, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case in brief is that, the petitioners are members of the same family and joint owners of certain lands situated at Village Chirhuldih, Gudhiyari, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.), which were duly diverted for residential purposes. Owing to domestic necessities such as marriages, medical expenses and construction of a residential house, the petitioners sold portions of the said diverted land from time to time over a long span of years, after following due revenue procedure. On the basis of a letter dated 10.08.2024 issued by the Additional Tahsildar, respondent No.2, an Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, lodged a report alleging that the petitioners were carrying out illegal plotting and selling land in small pieces without obtaining colony development permission, leading to registration of FIR No. 364/2025 dated 08.08.2025 at Police Station Gudhiyari for an offence under Section 292 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The petitioners assert that they are agriculturists, not colonizers or builders, that no colony has been developed by them, and that the impugned FIR has been registered after an unexplained delay of nearly one year. They further rely upon the fact that an FIR on identical allegations in respect of adjoining land, lodged on the same date, was quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P. 4 No. 3163/2025, and contend that the present FIR is without jurisdiction, barred by limitation and an abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR No. 364/2025 dated 08.08.2025, registered at Police Station Gudhiyari for an offence under Section 292 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. It is contended that in view of the mandatory bar contained in Section 396 of the Act of 1956, no Court can take cognizance of an offence under the said Act except on a complaint duly signed by the Commissioner or an authorized municipal officer, whereas in the present case the FIR has been registered by the police on the basis of a report lodged by an Assistant Engineer, who was not authorized in law. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR has been registered after an unexplained delay of about one year from the alleged date of occurrence and is clearly barred by limitation under Section 398 of the Act of 1956. It is argued that the petitioners are agriculturists and private land owners, not colonizers or builders, and they merely sold portions of their duly diverted land from time to time to meet domestic necessities, without developing any colony or undertaking illegal plotting. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Bhanwar Lal Parakh v. State of Chhattisgarh (W.A. No. 46/2015), as well as on the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3163/2025, wherein an FIR on identical allegations arising out of the same locality was quashed. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law 5 and prays for quashment of the impugned FIR. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of information received from the competent revenue authorities regarding illegal plotting and sale of land in small parcels without obtaining requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation. It is contended that the allegations disclosed in the FIR constitute a cognizable offence under Section 292 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and, at this stage, a prima facie case is made out warranting investigation. Learned State counsel further submits that the power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is extraordinary in nature and should be exercised sparingly, and that the disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioners, including the nature of the land transactions and alleged compliance with municipal laws, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings for quashment. It is argued that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and no charge-sheet has yet been filed; therefore, interference by this Court at this stage would be premature. On these grounds, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the material available on record, including the impugned FIR. From a plain reading of the 6 FIR and the documents annexed therewith, it is evident that the FIR has been registered for an alleged offence under Section 292 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 on the basis of a report submitted by respondent No.2, who is an Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation. The FIR itself reflects that the allegation pertains to alleged illegal plotting and sale of land without obtaining colony development permission from the Municipal Corporation. 8. At this stage, it is relevant to note that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court, in Cr.M.P. No. 3163 of 2025 (Narendra Sonkar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and another) decided on 04.11.2025, arising out of an identical FIR registered on the same date, on the same allegations, from the same locality, and lodged by the same Assistant Engineer, has categorically held that in view of Sections 396 and 398 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, registration of an FIR by the police for offences under the said Act is impermissible in law. It has been clearly laid down that prosecution under the Act of 1956 can be initiated only by way of a complaint by the Commissioner or by an officer duly authorized in that behalf, and not by registration of an FIR by the police. 9. This Court further finds that the alleged date of offence, as mentioned in the FIR, is 10.08.2024, whereas the FIR has been registered on 08.08.2025, i.e., after a lapse of nearly one year. Thus, even otherwise, the proceedings are prima facie barred by limitation in terms of Section 398 of the Act of 1956, which mandates that no 7 cognizance can be taken unless a complaint is made within six months from the date of the offence or from the date of knowledge thereof by the competent authority. 10. In view of the settled legal position as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Narendra Sonkar (supra), which in turn relies upon the earlier decisions in Mithlesh Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Bhanwar Lal Parakh v. State of Chhattisgarh, and considering that the present case stands on identical footing, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. Accordingly, applying the principle of parity and following the binding precedents of this Court, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition deserves to be allowed. The FIR No. 364/2025 dated 08.08.2025, registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), for the alleged offence under Section 292 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, is hereby quashed with respect to the present petitioners namely; Smt. Santoshi Bai, Smt. Shivbai Sahu, Shiv Kumar Sahu, Mahendra Kumar Sahu and Bhava Bai Sahu. However, it is made clear that respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to take recourse to law before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, if so advised Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved