1 2026:CGHC:14190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 859 of 2026 1 - Smt. Rekha Patel W/o Shri Basant Patel, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Bhanpuri Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Basant Patel S/o Late Shri Karsan Bhai Patel, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Bhanpuri Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Smt. Sushma Sahu W/o Om Prakash R/o Baramdei Para, Khamtarai Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhusan Sahu S/o Om Prakash R/o Baramdei Para, Kahmtarai Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Geeteshwari S/o Om Prakash R/o Baramdei Para, Kahmtarai Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Khushboo Sahu D/o Om Prakash R/o Baramdei Para, Kahmtarai Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Toran Lal Sahu S/o Shri Hemlal Sahu R/o House No. 1381/1, Ward No. 22, Sahu Para, Fafadih, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Incharge, P.S. Ganj Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate. For State : Mr. T. Nande, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.03.27 16:07:53 +0530 2 25/03/ 2026 1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Learned 08th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Revision No. 175/2024, whereby the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the order dated 30.03.2024, passed by the Learned Special Railway Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.), wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was rejected on the ground that the dispute between the parties appears to be civil in nature. 2. The facts of the case are that Respondent Nos. 1-4, claiming ownership of a land (Khasra No. 162/19, 161/1, area 2833 sq.ft., Fafadih, Raipur), entered into an agreement to sell with Deepak Thavre in 2012. Due to a family dispute, the land's division was pending. Respondent Nos. 1-4 received Rs.10,67,200 from Deepak Thavre and later approached the Petitioners, executing a Power of Attorney and agreement to sell on 03.06.2013 with Deepak Thavre's consent. The Petitioners paid Rs.33,68,000 to Respondent Nos. 1-4 between 2013-2022. In 2022, the joint ownership was divided, but Respondent Nos. 1-4 sold the land to Respondent No. 5 without informing the Petitioners, executing a sale agreement on 01.07.2022. The Petitioners filed a complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court 3 and the Revisional Court have erroneously held that the dispute is civil in nature. He further submits that it is clearly evident that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 firstly induced the petitioners to pay a total amount of Rs.33,68,900/- with regard to the sale of the subject land, and thereafter sold it to Respondent No. 5 without informing the petitioners. The allegations made by the petitioner clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences. In relation to these allegations, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, seeking directions for registration of an FIR, which was, however, dismissed by the trial Court against which the petitioners filed a revision which was also dismissed by the revisional Court. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 30.03.2024 and 08.12.2025, passed by the trial Court and the Revisional Court, respectively, are liable to be set aside. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record including the impugned orders. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the Revisional Court, wherein the application filed under Section 156(3) of CrPC was dismissed on the ground that it is not indicated that fraud or cheating has been committed by the respondents; rather, the matter appears to be related to the purchase and sale of land and money transactions, which prima facie appears to be civil in nature, I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial 4 Court, as affirmed by the learned Revisional Court, warranting interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. SSd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.