1 2026:CGHC:2724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 390 of 2022 Shiv Narayan Kushwaha S/o Ramdayal Kushwaha Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Amhar, Police Station Patna, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, P.S. Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 2 - Naval Ram S/o Mohan Bargah Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Harrapara, Ward No.5, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.16 17:08:58 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case for it's kind perusal and quash the entire charge sheet (Annexure P/1) and all the consequential criminal proceedings to the extent of present petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Inspector General, Ambikapur Range, alleging that he is the owner of certain lands bearing Khasra numbers [as mentioned in the complaint], which are ancestral property of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that persons namely Sanjay Agrawal, Bhupendra Yadav, Bhuri Bai, Manish Gupta, Prakhal Jaiswal, and Vinod Kumar had transacted the said lands on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, without including him, the original owner, as a party. On the basis of this complaint, the police registered an FIR on 01.03.2016 and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, certain documents were seized from the office of the Tahsildar. During the pendency of the investigation, the police implicated the present petitioner as an accused, alleging that the petitioner, being a practicing advocate, had prepared a forged WILL, which was allegedly used to effectuate the mutation of the land in question. Thereupon, the present petitioner filed an application 3 seeking anticipatory bail before this Court and this Court had enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed, wherein the petitioner was formally implicated as an accused, and criminal proceedings were initiated against him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, under Criminal Case No. 680/2017. 4. Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned charge sheet is replete with illegality and perversity and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. She further submits that upon perusal of the entire charge sheet, it is evident that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the police authorities have not collected any material or direct evidence implicating the petitioner in the alleged crime. In light of the guidelines and directions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this is a fit case for quashing the charge sheet against the petitioner. 5. Ms. Rai further submits that the petitioner, being a practicing advocate, has only discharged his professional duty towards his client. He has not prepared any document, appeared in any proceedings, nor affixed any false seal or signature. No evidence exists in the charge sheet connecting the petitioner to the alleged offences. She submits that a civil dispute between the parties is 4 pending before the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, being Civil Suit No. 11-A/2015. The complainant is attempting to convert this civil dispute into a criminal proceeding merely to exert pressure on the accused. 6. It is contended by Ms. Rai that the written complaint submitted by the complainant as well as in the FIR, the name of the petitioner is conspicuously absent, and there is no allegation that any false document was prepared by the petitioner or any other legal professional. Although it is alleged that the petitioner assisted the other accused in preparing a false WILL, the certified copy of the charge sheet and the list of seized documents fail to specifically mention any act of forgery attributable to the petitioner. It is lastly contended that even if the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet are taken at their face value, no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201, and 34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is well settled that a legal professional cannot be prosecuted merely for giving advice or for any inadvertent negligence while performing professional duties. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the charge sheet and the statements recorded during investigation, including those of the complainant Nawal Ram Yadav, Kamal Prasad Yadav, Shiv Bali Yadav, and others, 5 prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. It is evident from the investigation that the petitioner, a practicing advocate, assisted the co-accused in preparing a forged WILL to effectuate a mutation in land transactions, despite having no rightful claim, and facilitated illegal transfer of the property. 8. Mr. Rathi submits that the petitioner’s attempt to convert an ongoing civil dispute (Civil Suit No. 11-A/2015) into a criminal matter is wholly misconceived. The investigation has been conducted fairly, impartially, and in accordance with law, and the petitioner has been correctly implicated based on material evidence collected during the probe. The petition under Section 482 CrPC is misconceived, unsubstantiated, and devoid of merit. The extraordinary powers of this Court under Section 482 are to be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked as a substitute for appeal or revision. In view of the above, no case is made out for quashing the charge sheet, and the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 10. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that The complainant, Nawalram, son of Mohan Bargah, aged 60 years, resident of Harrapara, Baikunthpur, submitted a written 6 application stating that certain land in Harrapara, Baikunthpur, originally in the name of his father, had been fraudulently transferred through a Siyatnama by Balram Yadav and subsequently sold to five other persons. On the basis of the complaint, Police Station Kotwali Ambikapur, Surguja, registered a case against accused Balram Yadav, Sanjay Agarwal, Bhupendra Yadav, Bhuri Bai, Manish Gupta, Prakhar Jaiswal, and Vinod Kumar Yadav, and the diary was sent to Police Station Baikunthpur, where Crime No. 66/2016 was registered. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, and relevant documents, including the file regarding the land transfer, were seized from the Tehsil Office, Baikunthpur. 11. It further transpires that based on the statements, Advocate Shivkumar Kushwaha (the present petitioner) was also implicated as an accused. The investigation revealed that the absconding accused had conspired to prepare a forged WILL of the complainant’s father’s land, enabling Balram Yadav to transfer the land and sell it to others. Accused persons, including Shivkumar Kushwaha, Balram Yadav, Sanjay Agarwal, Bhupendra Yadav, Bhuri Bai, Manish Gupta, Prakhar Jaiswal, and Vinod Kumar Yadav, appeared before the police after obtaining anticipatory bail from the High Court, Bilaspur. They were subsequently arrested and released on bail bonds after furnishing competent sureties. Vinod Kumar Yadav remained absconding initially, necessitating the preparation of an absconding panchnama and collection of 7 information regarding his movable and immovable properties. 12. In view of the conspiracy, offences under Sections 120-B and 201 IPC were added to the case. Section 120-B was added for criminal conspiracy to forge the WILL, and Section 201 for concealing evidence, as Balram Yadav failed to produce the original WILL. After completing the investigation and legal scrutiny, including the absconding proceedings under Section 299 CrPC, Charge Sheet No. 83/2017 dated 24.04.2017 was filed. Upon obtaining anticipatory bail, the absconding accused, Vinod Kumar Yadav, appeared before the police, was arrested on 01.06.2017, and subsequently released on bail. 13. From a careful perusal of the record, pleadings, and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner, seeking quashment of Charge Sheet No. 83/2017 dated 24.04.2017, is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. 14. The complainant, Nawalram, son of Mohan Bargah, had lodged a written complaint alleging fraudulent transfer of ancestral land through a forged WILL by Balram Yadav and others. The investigation conducted by the police was thorough, impartial, and in accordance with law. Statements of witnesses, seizure of relevant documents from the Tehsil Office, and corroborative evidence demonstrate that a prima facie case exists against the 8 petitioner and the co-accused under Sections 120-B, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC. 15. The petitioner, being a practicing advocate, has been implicated on the basis of material evidence collected during the investigation. It is apparent that the petitioner allegedly assisted in the preparation of the forged WILL, which facilitated illegal transfer and sale of the disputed land. The charge sheet clearly records these allegations, supported by witness statements and documentary evidence. 16. It is also noticed that the petitioner’s attempt to characterize the matter as merely a civil dispute is unsustainable. The investigation reveals criminal acts such as conspiracy, forgery, and concealment of evidence, which are distinct and separate from civil claims regarding land ownership. The law clearly recognizes that quashing of a charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC is an extraordinary power, to be exercised sparingly, and only in cases where the allegations are palpably frivolous, vexatious, or manifestly untenable. The present case does not fall within these parameters. 17. Further, the investigation has been conducted fairly, following all procedural requirements, and there is no evidence of bias, malafide action, or abuse of process by the police authorities. The petitioner’s submissions, including reliance on anticipatory bail and professional duties as a lawyer, do not negate the 9 material evidence that prima facie implicates him in the alleged offences. 18. In view of the above, it is held that no case is made out for the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The petition lacks any merit, is unsubstantiated, and fails to demonstrate circumstances warranting interference with the ongoing criminal proceedings. 19. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the threshold. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Charge Sheet No. 83/2017, Crime No. 66/2016, registered at Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya, are to continue in accordance with law. 20. The observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposing of the petition and shall not prejudice the rights of any party in the ongoing criminal proceedings. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu