1 2026:CGHC:1861-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 107 of 2026 1 - Parasnath Rajavade S/o Late Rudan Ram Rajavade Aged About 48 Years Profession - Government Servant, R/o Mishra Lane, Surajpur, Behind Global School, P.S. Surajpur, Tehsil And District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Sukrin Das S/o Late Lakhau Aged About 55 Years R/o. Village - Dumariya, P.S. Surajpur, Dist. Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Santlal S/o Late Lakhau Aged About 60 Years R/o. Village - Dumariya, P.S. Surajpur, Dist.- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13 .01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondent. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.01.15 09:26:12 +0530 2 2. The present CrMP under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the charge-sheet bearing final report No. 145/2024 dated 10.04.2024 in FIR No. 37/2024 dated 14.01.2024 registered at Police Station Surajpur, Dist- Surajpur (CG) for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B R/w 34 of IPC and criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 75/2024 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, Dist- Surjapur. 3. The present case arises out of a land dispute relating to the property of late Shiva, uncle of both the complainants and the accused, in respect of which FIR No. 37/2024 was registered at Police Station Surajpur under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC alleging procurement of a false death certificate and forged Will for wrongful mutation and sale of land. It is alleged that a death certificate showing the date of death of Shiva as 30.03.2008 was fraudulently obtained, whereas the complainants claimed that Shiva died on 05.04.1989, though official revenue records show that Shiva personally appeared before the Tehsildar, Surajpur on 17.01.1990 and was granted Patta, establishing that he was alive after the alleged date of death. Parallel proceedings were initiated before Tehsildar Surajpur and Tehsildar Chirmiri resulting in issuance of two contradictory death certificates, both of which were ultimately set aside by the respective SDO (Revenue) vide order dated 19.04.2024, and the order passed by the SDO (R), Chirmiri was further affirmed by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division on 30.07.2024. The FIR has been registered and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against three accused persons showing the other accused persons absconding. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Gram Panchayat Secretary with no statutory role in issuance of death certificates, which are issued solely by the Tehsildar. The prosecution is based on a death certificate dated 05.04.1989, which has been set aside by the SDO (R) on 19.04.2024 and the said order has attained finality after dismissal of appeal by the Commissioner on 30.07.2024. He would further submit that late Shiva appeared before the Tehsildar, Surajpur on 17.01.1990 and was granted Patta, conclusively proving that the alleged death on 05.04.1989 is false. An FIR has been registered against Respondent No. 2 for fabrication of the same death certificate dated 05.04.1989, showing that the present prosecution is malicious. The petitioner is neither the beneficiary of the land nor derived any advantage from the alleged acts. No incriminating material has been collected by the investigating agency to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences. The dispute relates to land mutation and inheritance, already adjudicated by revenue authorities, and criminal proceedings are an abuse of process. He would further submit that the case falls within categories laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 335, the proceedings are maliciously instituted to harass the petitioner and to settle a private land dispute. Therefore, the FIR, charge-sheet and the entire criminal proceeding of the case may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the State/respondent would submit that after due investigation, charge- sheet has been filed against three accused persons, showing the other accused persons absconding. He would also submit that, that this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex 4 Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 7. At the stage of discharge or quashing, only a prima facie case is to be seen and not the defence of the accused. The investigation reveals that the petitioner, though a Gram Panchayat Secretary, actively facilitated the process by preparing and forwarding documents and reports which formed the basis for issuance of the impugned death certificate. Merely because the death certificate was issued by the Tehsildar does not absolve the petitioner. The offence alleged is not limited to issuance but extends to conspiracy and facilitation under Sections 120-B and 34 IPC, wherein the petitioner acted in concert with other accused persons. The controversy regarding the actual date of death of late Shiva, existence of two death certificates, and alleged appearance before the Tehsildar in 1990 involves seriously disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Orders passed by revenue authorities setting aside a death certificate are administrative in nature and do not determine criminal culpability. Criminal liability for use of forged or fabricated documents survives independently of revenue proceedings. Registration of another FIR against Respondent No. 2 does not ipso facto nullify the present FIR. Both FIRs arise from distinct factual allegations, and involvement of multiple accused in fabrication of documents is a matter of evidence. Absence of direct benefit to the petitioner is irrelevant where criminal conspiracy and abetment are 5 alleged. Even facilitation without personal gain attracts criminal liability. The charge-sheet contains statements of witnesses and documentary material indicating the petitioner’s role in submission of incorrect information to public authorities, which is sufficient to proceed to trial. The present case does not fall within the exceptional categories laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 335, as the FIR discloses cognizable offences and the allegations are neither absurd nor inherently improbable. Entertaining the petitioner’s defence at this stage would amount to conducting a mini trial, which is impermissible in law. Offences relating to manipulation of public records and death certificates strike at the root of public administration, and such matters deserve to be tested through full- fledged trial. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire 6 about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 10. From perusal of the material annexed with the present petition, it transpires that there are allegation in the FIR itself that Shiva was actually expired in the year 1989 whereas another death certificate showing his death on 30.03.2008 has been obtained from the authorities concerned fraudulently and the accused persons also got prepared a forged Will deed allegedly executed by the deceased Shiva on 02.01.2008, get the name of propounder recorded in the revenue record and thereby committed the offence. The geninous of the subsequent death certificate as well as Will deed dated 02.01.2008 is in question which has been obtained by the accused persons by fraudulent means after hatching conspiracy with each other. The documents of death certificate of Late Shiva and the alleged Will deed was seized by the Police which are the subject matter of the proceeding. The documents of the revenue proceeding have also been seized and from the statement of the witnesses Mantos, Santlal, Sukhrindas, Naresh Kumar, Vijay Bhan, Smt. Fuleshwari, Karmu, there are sufficient material available in the charge-sheet to take cognizance of the offence and to proceed with the case. 7 11. After having gone through the allegations made in the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet, in our humble opinion it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioner as there is allegation of cheating and forgery of document etc. and in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground for interference as it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika