1 2026:CGHC:19736-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1165 of 2026 Ejaz Ahmad Niyazi S/o Late Sarfuddin Niyazi Aged About 55 Years R/o House No.01, Street No.06, V.V. Vihar Colony Mowa Pandri Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur. District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent of Police Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Pandri District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Shaheen Niyazi W/o Shri Tahir Niyazi Aged About 51 Years R/o Near Bemetara Bus Station Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29 .04.2026 1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.04.30 10:17:29 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) praying for following relief(s) :- “1. The hon'ble court kindly be pleased to Quash/set-aside FIR No.29/2022 U/S 420 IPC, lodged at Police Station Pandri, District-Raipur (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 2. The Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to quash the chargesheet filed by the respondent bearing final report no. 125/2022, dated 22/05/2022 in FIR No.29/2022 dated 30/01/2022 registered at Police Station Pandri, District- Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Hon,ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the cognizance dated 22/08/2023 passed by criminal case no.12441/2023, pending before the before judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 4. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Quash framing Charges dated 02/09/2025 under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 5. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Quash the entire Criminal Proceedings pending against the Petitioner in Criminal Case No. 12441/2023 pending before judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 6. Pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court deems just, fit and proper, in the interest of Justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned criminal proceedings are wholly misconceived, malicious and an 3 abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature relating to title and ownership of immovable property. It is contended that the petitioner has derived lawful title over the land in question by virtue of a valid Hibanama dated 15.10.2008 executed by respondent No. 04 herself, which was acted upon and duly culminated into mutation in the revenue records in the year 2009. The said mutation has remained unchallenged for more than 16 years and, therefore, carries a presumption of correctness. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 04, without availing appropriate civil or revenue remedies within a reasonable time, has sought to give a criminal colour to a settled civil transaction by lodging the FIR in the year 2022, with an oblique motive to harass and pressurize the petitioner. Even in the FIR, there is no allegation of forgery or fabrication of signature in the Hibanama; rather, the allegation is that the same was obtained under alleged pressure, which by itself does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC, particularly in absence of any dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the subsequent developments clearly fortify the civil nature of the dispute, inasmuch as respondent No. 04 has belatedly preferred an appeal under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code after an inordinate delay of 16 years, and the petitioner has also instituted a civil suit wherein the competent civil court has been pleased to grant 4 temporary injunction in his favour, thereby recognizing his prima facie possession and title. It is also contended that despite a categorical submission made by the learned State counsel before this Hon’ble Court in earlier proceedings that a closure report had been filed, no such report exists on record and, on the contrary, the petitioner is being compelled to face trial, which reflects gross arbitrariness and non-application of mind on the part of the investigating agency. The continuation of criminal proceedings, including registration of FIR bearing Crime No. 29/2022, filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge under Section 420 IPC, is thus nothing but a coercive mechanism to settle a civil dispute and is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation clearly disclose commission of a cognizable offence under Section 420 IPC. It is contended that the petitioner, by misrepresenting facts and abusing the process of law, has managed to get the land of respondent No. 04 recorded in his name in the revenue records on the basis of a purported Hibanama, the genuineness and voluntariness of which is seriously disputed by the complainant. The State submits that the question whether the said document was executed under free 5 consent or obtained by coercion or undue influence is a matter of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 B.N.S.S. 6. It is further submitted that merely because civil and revenue proceedings are pending between the parties, the same does not ipso facto bar criminal prosecution when the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie made out. Learned State counsel contends that the investigation has been conducted in accordance with law, charge-sheet has been filed, and charges have already been framed by the competent court, therefore, the matter is at the stage of trial. At this juncture, interference by this Court would be unwarranted, as the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to establish his defence during trial. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 8. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has, after due investigation, collected cogent material pointing towards the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. The charge-sheet reveals that the complainant had purchased the subject plots way back in the year 1999 through a registered sale deed and her name was duly reflected in the revenue records. It is further borne out that the petitioner, taking advantage of a position of trust, obtained the 6 original title documents from the complainant on the pretext of carrying out correction in the boundary description of the land and, thereafter, induced her to sign a stamp paper under the guise of facilitating such correction. The material collected during investigation indicates that the said signed document was subsequently utilized for preparation of a Hibanama, on the basis of which the land came to be mutated in the name of the petitioner. 9. The charge-sheet further reflects that during investigation, statements of relevant witnesses were recorded, spot inspection was conducted, documentary evidence was seized and examined, and even memorandum of the accused was recorded under the applicable provisions of law. On the cumulative strength of such material, the investigating agency has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has prima facie committed the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and accordingly filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. 10. At this juncture, it is trite law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to meticulously examine the probative value of evidence or to adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioner, namely, that the property was validly transferred by way of Hibanama and that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, raises issues which are intrinsically 7 factual and require appreciation of evidence, including examination of the circumstances under which the alleged document was executed, the voluntariness of consent, and the existence or otherwise of fraudulent intent at the inception. Such questions cannot be conclusively determined in a petition seeking quashment at the threshold. The material on record, as reflected in the charge-sheet, prima facie discloses elements of deception and inducement, which are foundational to the offence under Section 420 IPC, and therefore it cannot be said that no offence is made out. 11. It is also well settled that the mere availability or pendency of civil or revenue proceedings does not by itself preclude criminal prosecution, particularly when the allegations disclose ingredients of a criminal offence. In the present case, the allegations go beyond a mere civil dispute over title and encompass acts of alleged fraud and misrepresentation, which, if proved, would attract penal consequences. The contention of the petitioner that the proceedings are actuated by mala fide or that the criminal process is being misused, does not find sufficient substantiation at this stage so as to warrant interference by this Court. On the contrary, the sequence of events as reflected from the charge- sheet indicates that the prosecution has proceeded on the basis of material collected in accordance with law and the learned trial Court, upon due consideration, has already framed charges against the petitioner. 8 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the limited parameters warranting exercise of inherent powers for quashing of criminal proceedings. Interference at this stage would amount to prematurely stifling a legitimate prosecution and would be contrary to the settled principles governing such jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion and settled legal principles, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 14. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu