1 2026:CGHC:23189-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1393 of 2026 Shyam Bahadur Singh @ Vinod Singh S/o Shri Mathura Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o House No. 43, Near Ekta Chouck, Ward No. 16, Kailash Nagar, Kurud, P.S. Jamul, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. Adhar No. 930041634281. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer (S.H.O.), P.S. Berla, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pushpa Vishwakarma W/o Shri Ganesh Vishwakarma R/o Opposite Bansal Petrol Pump, Jamul, P.S. Jamul, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. and Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.15 18:54:54 +0530 2 Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Govenment Advocate for the respondent / State as well as Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the impugned order in Criminal Revision no.54/2025, dated 12.01.2026 (P/1), Passed by the IInd Additional Session Judge, Dist: Bemetara (C.G), along with the order of Framing Charges U/s 120-b, 467, 468, 471,419,420,201 rd/w 34 of I.P.C, by the Trial Court/J.M.F.C Bemetara (C.G.) dated 21.07.2025 (P/3). It is further most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to allow the petition and quash the impugned Pending Criminal Case no.132/2020 (P/2), & the Charge Sheet no.15/2020 (P/4), dated 06.02.2020, pursuant to FIR bearing crime no.43/ 2019, for the offences punishable U/s 420, 120-b, 467, 468, 471, 34 of I.P.C at P.S.- Berla, Dist: Bemetara (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. As per the prosecution case, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Bemetara (C.G.) on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.2 Pushpa Vishwakarma alleging that her brother Gyanprakash @ Babu had fraudulently alienated joint family property by preparing forged and fabricated documents, FIR No.43/2019 was registered 3 at Police Station Berla for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC; it is further the case that on a similar application filed by another sister, Rimpi Sharma, arising out of the same transaction and identical allegations against the same set of accused persons, FIR No.42/2019 was also registered on 27.01.2019 at the same police station, thereby giving rise to two parallel criminal proceedings on substantially the same facts and occurrence. The complainants, who are sisters of the main accused Gyanprakash @ Babu, alleged that forged power of attorney was executed in their names on the basis of which sale deeds were executed in favour of various persons, wherein several accused persons have been arrayed including alleged impersonators, witnesses, document writer, stamp vendor and purchasers with specified roles as per the charge-sheet; insofar as the present petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos.12, 13 and 14, are concerned, the allegation is confined to their alleged involvement in benami transactions and acting at the instance of co-accused, which is primarily based upon the statement of co- accused Gyanprakash @ Babu recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 13.11.2019, without any independent recovery or admissible material under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that the petitioners had earlier challenged the charge-sheet by filing CRMP No.1473/2023 and thereafter CRMP No.2364/2025 before this Court, however charges were subsequently framed by the Trial Court and the revision against 4 the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2026, leading to the present challenge to the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings. It is the case of the petitioners that the dispute essentially arises out of a civil transaction which has been given a criminal colour, that the complainants are attempting to take advantage of the same set of facts, and that even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners, thereby amounting to an abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are nothing but an arm-twisting measure adopted by the complainant for exerting pressure in relation to the family property and alleged sale consideration, whereas the complainant herself has no locus to initiate criminal proceedings against the present petitioners, particularly when a civil dispute in respect of the same transaction is already pending in Civil Suit No.03/2017 (earlier Civil Suit No.21A/2017) for cancellation of sale deed, in which no averments whatsoever have been made against the petitioners and no relief has ever been sought against them. It is further submitted that two separate FIRs have been registered for the same alleged transaction pursuant to two separate applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the sisters of the main accused, and neither in the applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. nor in the FIRs were the present petitioners named or attributed any role. Learned 5 counsel submits that the only basis of implicating the petitioners is the statement of co-accused Gyanprakash @ Babu recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which has no evidentiary value against co-accused and cannot legally form the sole basis of arraigning the petitioners in absence of any procedure under Sections 169, 173, 306 or 321 Cr.P.C., especially when no recovery or discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been made. It is also argued that the letters dated 16.01.2020, 29.01.2020 and 31.01.2020 issued by Police Station Berla to the District Manager, Bemetara do not disclose any allegation against the petitioners, thereby rendering the alleged Section 161 statement dated 13.11.2019 prima facie doubtful and apparently backdated, as had such statement existed earlier, corresponding investigation regarding the petitioners would have reflected in the subsequent police correspondence. Counsel further submits that the core allegation is only against the main accused Gyanprakash @ Babu, who allegedly forged the power of attorney and executed sale deeds after receiving the sale consideration through cheque, bank transfer and cash, whereas there is no material showing any wrongful gain to the petitioners or wrongful loss caused by them, nor do any of the disputed documents bear their signatures, nor is any transaction shown in the charge-sheet connecting them with the alleged offence. It is further contended that none of the sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners or any person related to them, and even in the pending civil proceedings, the 6 injunction application of the plaintiffs has already been rejected vide order dated 14.10.2022, which itself demonstrates the civil nature of the dispute. It is argued that the basic ingredients of the offences alleged are absent against the petitioners, as the impersonation was allegedly committed by other accused persons and the entire sale consideration was received by the main accused alone, while the petitioners have been implicated merely on bald and omnibus allegations without any documentary or financial linkage. Learned counsel also submits that Clause 729 of the Chhattisgarh Police Manual discourages criminal investigation in matters predominantly civil in nature, yet the respondents have deliberately suppressed material facts and misused criminal machinery to harass the petitioners, and thus the continuation of proceedings against them amounts to abuse of process of law, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 and submits that the discharge application of the petitioner has already been rejected by the learned trial Court and since the charges have been framed and the trial is at the stage of recording of prosecution witnesses, this petition has virtually become infructuous and as such, the same may be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposes the 7 petition and submits that the present case is not a mere civil dispute but a serious criminal case involving forgery, fabrication of power of attorney, impersonation and fraudulent alienation of ancestral property by creating forged documents. It is submitted that merely because a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed is pending, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed when the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet disclose distinct criminal acts. Learned counsel further submits that the present petitioners were not impleaded as parties in Civil Suit No.03/2017 only because they are neither purchasers under the impugned sale deeds nor necessary parties to the relief sought therein, as the suit is directed against cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of actual purchasers and against the principal executants. Non-impleadment of the petitioners in the civil suit does not absolve them from criminal liability arising from their alleged active participation in the conspiracy and benami transactions, as revealed during investigation. It is further contended that the charge-sheet contains sufficient material indicating the role of the petitioners in facilitating the fraudulent transactions at the instance of co-accused Gyanprakash @ Babu, and the plea that they have been falsely implicated on account of family dispute is a matter of defence, which can only be tested during trial. Therefore, at this stage, when charges have already been framed and the trial has commenced, no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the FIR, charge-sheet, statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, and the documents appended with the petition. Upon such consideration, it emerges that the prosecution has specifically alleged that the present applicant/petitioner was not merely passive or unrelated persons but was actively associated with the principal accused, namely Gyanprakash @ Babu, in the transactions relating to the disputed ancestral property. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that the main accused had allegedly prepared forged and fabricated power of attorney documents in the names of his sisters and, on the strength of such forged authority, executed sale deeds in favour of third parties. So far as the present applicant is concerned, the allegation against him is that he acted in concert with the principal accused and facilitated the fraudulent transactions by participating in benami dealings and by extending assistance in execution of the alleged conspiracy for alienation of the property. The charge-sheet further reflects that his names surfaced during investigation in the memorandum and statements of co-accused, wherein it was disclosed that he was were acting at the instance of the principal accused and had allegedly played a role in managing and channelizing the sale transactions despite not being the direct 9 executants of the sale deeds. At this stage, though the petitioner disputes such allegations and contend that he has been falsely implicated only on the basis of the statement of co-accused, it cannot be overlooked that the accusations pertain to offences of forgery, use of forged documents, cheating and criminal conspiracy, which are cognizable in nature and involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence during trial. Since the learned Trial Court has already taken cognizance, rejected the discharge application, and framed charges upon being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the defence raised by the petitioner regarding absence of direct documentary linkage, civil nature of dispute, or alleged false implication cannot be examined in proceedings under inherent jurisdiction at this stage. The allegations, taken at their face value, disclose sufficient prima facie material against the petitioner for proceeding with the trial, and therefore no ground for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet, or consequential criminal proceedings is made out. 9. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet