1 2026:CGHC:2408-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 887 of 2024 Ramkhilawan S/o Late Makrudas Tandon Aged About 46 Years R/o Vil- lage Thelkadih, Tehsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh- Chuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ajay Sharma S/o K.N. Sharma R/o Mig- 2/206, Aamdi Nagar, Hudco, Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15.01.2026 1 Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.15 17:05:03 +0530 2 2 The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following reliefs :- “The Petitioner humbly and most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble court may kindly be please to quash First Information Report no. 175/2018 registered at Police station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai and Chargesheet bearing no. 158/2018 dated 17/08/2018 and order framing charges dated 12/02/2024 and all consequential criminal proceedings in criminal case no. 593/2018 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Khairagarh (C.G) may kindly also be quashed in the interest of Justice.” 3 Brief facts of the case, are that on 13.06.2018, the complainant, upon visiting the disputed land, alleged that the wire fencing had been broken and the name plate painted black, and on the basis of hearsay attributed the act to the petitioner, Ram Khilawan Tandon. Consequently, FIR No. 175/2018 dated 14.06.2018 was registered at Police Station Khairagarh for offences under Sections 427 and 447 IPC. Pursuant thereto, Charge-sheet No. 158/2018 dated 17.08.2018 was filed and charges were framed by the Trial Court on 12.02.2024. 4 The petitioner contends that the FIR and subsequent proceedings are false, vexatious, and an abuse of the criminal process, initiated solely to exert pressure upon him in a long-standing civil dispute concerning ancestral agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 3 117 (old Khasra No. 94), admeasuring 4.70 acres, situated at Village Thelkadih, Tehsil Khairagarh. The petitioner and his ancestors have been in continuous possession and cultivation of the said land since 1956–57, which is duly reflected in revenue records and supported by possession certificates issued by the Gram Panchayat and complaints made by the Panchayat to the Tehsildar acknowledging such possession. 5 It is further asserted that the complainant has repeatedly attempted to dispossess the petitioner by initiating criminal proceedings on identical facts. Earlier FIRs bearing Nos. 490/2014 (under Section 447 IPC) and 491/2014 (under Section 188 IPC) resulted in acquittal of the petitioner by judgments dated 07.02.2020. Proceedings initiated by the complainant under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code were also stayed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 16.08.2021 in WPC No. 3318/2021. 6 A civil suit concerning declaration of title and possession and for declaring the sale deed null and void, though dismissed on 26.10.2023, is presently under consideration in First Appeal No. 25/2023. Thus, the present prosecution is nothing but an attempt to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute and to harass the petitioner into surrendering his ancestral property. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been manifestly lodged with mala fide intention and the 4 criminal proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner on account of a purely private and personal grudge. It is contended that, despite there being no material on record and no factual foundation whatsoever to attract the alleged offences, the FIR has been registered mechanically and the basic ingredients of the offences are not made out. It is further submitted that, from a bare perusal of the record, it is apparent that a long-standing civil dispute has deliberately been given a criminal colour, rendering the FIR a clear abuse of the process of law. On identical facts arising out of the same dispute, the petitioner has already been acquitted earlier and, therefore, he cannot be subjected to repeated prosecution for the very same controversy. 8 Learned counsel submits that the material relied upon by the petitioner conclusively demolishes and overrides the allegations made in the FIR. Such material has neither been refuted by the prosecution nor is it capable of being justifiably refuted. The allegations contained in the FIR are stated to be absurd, vague, and inherently improbable, to the extent that no prudent person could arrive at a conclusion that there exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the contents of the FIR do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. It is also urged that the chances of conviction are extremely bleak and the prosecution case, even if taken at face 5 value, is likely to culminate in acquittal. The prosecution has made only sweeping and general allegations without specifying any overt act attributable to the petitioner and without bringing on record any cogent or reliable evidence. Dragging an innocent person into criminal proceedings and compelling him to undergo the ordeal of trial amounts to a gross violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 9 Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the present criminal proceedings constitute a complete misuse of the criminal justice machinery and an abuse of the due process of law, as the petitioner has been falsely implicated without any fault on his part. It is lastly contended that the ends of justice squarely warrant exercise of the inherent powers of this Court to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings. 10 On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the FIR has been registered strictly in accordance with law on the basis of allegations disclosing commission of cognizable offences. It is contended that the investigation has been carried out fairly and impartially, culminating in filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges by the learned Trial Court, which itself indicates that sufficient material exists to proceed against the petitioner. He further submits that, at the stage of considering a petition for quashment, this Court is not required to appreciate evidence or 6 adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. The defence set up by the petitioner, including claims of title and possession, pertains to matters which can only be adjudicated during trial and cannot be examined in proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 11 It is urged that mere pendency of a civil dispute or previous acquittals on different FIRs does not bar registration of a subsequent FIR or continuation of criminal proceedings if the allegations disclose a distinct offence. According to the State, the ingredients of offences under Sections 427 and 447 IPC are prima facie attracted and the allegations cannot be said to be so absurd or improbable as to warrant interference at this stage. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that the petition is devoid of merits, the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy of facing trial and raising all permissible defences before the Trial Court, and no case is made out for exercise of inherent powers for quashing the FIR or the consequential criminal proceedings. 12 Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Complainant submits that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings have been lodged and initiated bona fide, based on the allegations that the petitioner unlawfully damaged the fencing and painted the nameplate on the disputed land, thereby committing offences under Sections 427 and 447 IPC. It is contended that the registration of the FIR was neither malicious nor with any ulterior motive, but done in 7 accordance with law to protect the complainant’s legal rights and property interests. He submits that the allegations involve overt acts of trespass and mischief, which are distinct offences under the Indian Penal Code, independent of any civil dispute regarding ownership or possession. The complainant had reason to approach the police after discovering the alleged acts of damage and obstruction on the land, and therefore the FIR cannot be treated as frivolous or vexatious. 13 It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the pendency of a civil suit or prior acquittals in unrelated matters does not preclude the institution of criminal proceedings, particularly when the facts constituting the alleged offences are separate and specific. The complainant has a legitimate grievance that warrants investigation, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to pre-emptively quash the FIR merely on the ground of anticipated acquittal or prior disputes. As such, the petition be dismissed. 14 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length as well as all other documents annexed with the present petition. 15 The material on record clearly establishes that the petitioner has been in uninterrupted and lawful possession of the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 117 (old Khasra 94), admeasuring 4.70 acres, situated at Village Thelkadih, Tehsil Khairagarh, District 8 Khairagarh-Gandai-Chuikhadan. The possession of the petitioner and his ancestors over several decades is substantiated by multiple sources of documentary evidence, including but not limited to, revenue records (B-1 Khasra), possession certificates issued by the Gram Panchayat on several occasions, and prior judicial pronouncements acknowledging the petitioner’s long- standing occupancy. Further, the Tehsildar and local authorities have consistently recognized the petitioner’s possession, and the record reflects that attempts by the complainant to dispossess the petitioner have been restrained by the courts in previous proceedings. 16 A careful scrutiny of the FIR and the accompanying allegations reveals that the complaints made therein are vague, generalized, and entirely devoid of specific facts pointing to any overt act committed by the petitioner. The narrative advanced in the FIR is inherently improbable and fails to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence under the Indian Penal Code. The ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Sections 427 and 447 IPC are not made out. 17 The registration of the FIR, in these circumstances, appears to be primarily aimed at pressuring the petitioner into surrendering his lawful possession of the property and to create an undue advantage for the complainant in a pending civil dispute over the same land. 9 18 This Court is conscious that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. However, it is well-settled that the High Court may intervene to prevent abuse of the process of law, to secure the ends of justice, and to protect a person from malicious or vexatious litigation. In the present case, all these conditions are met. The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not only serve no legitimate purpose but would amount to harassment, intimidation, and a grave misuse of the criminal justice system. It would compel an innocent individual to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial, thereby infringing upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which protect the right to equality, fair treatment, and personal liberty. 19 The Court also notes that on identical or closely similar facts, the petitioner has been previously acquitted in FIRs bearing Nos.490/2014 and 491/2014, which demonstrates that the alleged acts are not such as to warrant criminal prosecution. The pendency of civil proceedings for declaration of title and possession further reinforces that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and that no criminality exists in the petitioner’s conduct. In such circumstances, permitting the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings to continue would be wholly unjust and contrary to the principles of fair play and equity. 10 20 In the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, this Court is, therefore, satisfied that the ends of justice would be met by quashing the FIR No. 175/2018 dated 14.06.2018 registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh- Chuikhadan-Gandai, the Charge-sheet No. 158/2018 dated 17.08.2018, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is expressly clarified that this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to pursue their respective remedies in civil proceedings or any other lawful forum. 21 Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the FIR, the charge- sheet, and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. 22 There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu