1 2026:CGHC:1076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 4 of 2026 1 - Gurdeep Singh S/o Late Shri Keshar Singh, Aged About 68 Years Occupation- Dairy Business, R/o- Railnagar, Charoda, P.S.H.- Old Bhilai 3, Tehsil Bhilai, District, Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.H. Old Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Dilip Hinduja, S/o Shri Tikam Das Hinduja, Aged About 58 Years, R/o New Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, P.S.H.- Civil Lines, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Ashok Verma, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Gajendra Sahu, Advocate. For State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 07.01. 202 6 1. The present Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, against the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No.47/2025 whereby the said Criminal Revision filed by the respondent No.2-Dilip Hinduja was allowed and the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3, District Durg, in Criminal Case No.663/2014 was set aside. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.02.11 10:27:25 +0530 2 2. The subject matter in brief is that, an FIR of Crime No.120/2013 was registered at Police Station, Old Bhilai, District Durg, for the offence under Sections 420,467,468,471, 34 IPC against the present petitioner Gurdeep Singh, co-accused Mohd. Shakeel Khan and Keshari Begum. After investigation, charge sheet was filed on 02.08.2014 against the co-accused persons Shakeel Khan and Keshari Begum stating no sufficient evidence was found against the present petitioner Gurdeep Singh during investigation and since the co-accused Keshari Begum was absconding, charge sheet was filed only against Shakeel Khan. It was the allegation in the complaint made by the complainant Dilip Hinduja that the present petitioner along with other co-accused persons prepared forged Rin Pustika and power of attorney and got the land of Khasra Nos. 462/2 & 463/2 situated at village Charoda, District Durg, transferred in the name of co-accused in between 30.11.1994 and 24.02.2012. Initially charge sheet was filed against the co-accused Shakeel Khan and subsequently when the co-accused Keshari Begum was arrested, supplementary charge sheet was filed against her on 26.03.2016. Further, another supplementary charge sheet was filed against the present petitioner on 12.08.2024 for the offence under Sections 420,464,467,468,471, 34 IPC along with Section 120-B IPC. On 17.09.2024 an application was filed by the present petitioner under Section 91 CrPC for directing the police authorities to produce the relevant documents of Revenue Case No.78/B-121/2017-18 and the report of Naib Tehsildar dated 18.01.2018 and 12.07.2019. The trial court directed the prosecution to produce the documents of letter dated 03.12.2017 written to Naib Tehsildar by Police Station Old Bhiali, report 3 of the Naib Tehsildar dated 27.12.2017, stay order dated 18.01.2018 and the amended order dated 12.07.2019. The prosecution took time repeatedly to comply with the order dated 17.09.2024 and the certified copies of the relevant documents in compliance of the order dated 17.09.2024 was produced by the prosecution on 20.11.2024. Thereafter, the matter was being heard on the issue of framing charge against the petitioner Gurdeep Singh and after recording submissions of the parties, on 07.12.2024 the petitioner Gurdeep Singh was discharged from the offence under Sections 420,467,468,471, 34 and 120-B of IPC. 3. The said order of discharge of the petitioner Gurdeep Singh was challenged by the complainant Dilip Hinduja before the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No.47/2025. The said Criminal Revision was allowed vide order dated 13.11.2025 and the order passed by the trial court dated 07.12.2024, discharging the petitioner/accused Gurdeep Singh, was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for its fresh consideration and to proceed in accordance with law against the accused Gurdeep Singh, which is under challenge in the present Criminal Misc. Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no sufficient material in the charge sheet to proceed with the trial against the present petitioner Gurdeep Singh. At the time when first charge sheet was filed against co-accused persons, it has been specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that no sufficient evidence is found against the present petitioner Gurdeep Singh and accordingly he was not arrayed as an accused in the original charge sheet. After about 11 4 years of filing original charge sheet, supplementary charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner on the same same facts which were available in the year 2014 itself. Filing of supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner is abuse of process of law as well as process of the court. In supplementary charge sheet, the dead persons have been made witnesses which itself shows that the supplementary charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner with malafide intention. He would further submit that the respondent No.2-Dilip Hinduja, is claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased Kewal Ram on the basis of an alleged will executed in his favour, but the said Will was not executed with respect to subject land and Dilip Hinduja was having no locus to file Criminal Revision against the order dated 07.12.2024 before the Sessions Court. The main witness Kewal Ram, who was complainant in the case, died in the year, 2018 itself, yet he has been shown as witness in the supplementary charge sheet. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.2 had filed a Criminal Complaint Case against the petitioner and two other co-accused persons before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3 for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 464, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC which was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.314/2015 in which the evidences are also started and it has been fixed for 08.01.2026. Filing of charge sheet by the police in the same matter amounts to double jeopardy and two separate proceedings for the same offence cannot be continued in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. In Crime No.663/2014 which is pending before the trial court against co-accused Shakeel Khan & 5 others and in the Criminal Complaint Case filed against the petitioner, the allegations are the same. He would also submit that the Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that one Civil Suit was also filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and other accused persons in the Court of 6th Additional District Judge, Durg, vide Civil Suit No.65-A/2014 to declare the sale deed null and void which is still pending consideration. Therefore, in the garb of criminality, civil dispute cannot be converted into a Criminal Case and as such the supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner cannot be filed when the civil dispute as well as criminal case against other accused persons are still subjudice. It is also submitted that another Civil Suit No.51-A/2012 has been filed by the petitioner against Kewal Ram for specific performance of the Contract which is also pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhilai-3, District Durg. The petitioner was cited as prosecution witness in first charge sheet filed against the co- accused Shakeel Khan as also in the first supplementary charge sheet filed against co-accused Keshari Begum. Filing of supplementary charge sheet after such a long time of 11 years would amount to abuse of judicial process of law as well as court. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case the trial court has rightly discharged the petitioner, however the Additional Sessions Judge have not considered the true aspect of the facts of the case as well as law laid down by the Supreme Court holding the field, and set aside the well reasoned order passed by the trial court and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration against the petitioner in accordance with law, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the order passed 6 by the trial court may be restored. In support of his contentions, he would rely upon the following judgments: • Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba Vs. The State of West Bengal, SLP(Cr.)No.3002 of 2024. • Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, AIR 2015 SC (Cr.)500. • State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal & Others, 1992 CrLJ 527. • S.C. Garg Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2025 INSC 493 (Criminal Appeal No.438 of 2018) • Robert Lalchungnunga Vs. Chongthu @ RL Chongthu, 2025 INSC 1339 {SLP(Cr.)No.10130 of 2025} • Nitya Dharmananda @ K Lenin and Another Vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy and Another, 2018(2) SCC 93. • T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 2637 • Shiv Charan & Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Another, 2012 CrLJ 211. • Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2009 AIR SCW 1418 • Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2008 CrLJ 3944. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order passed by the revisional court. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. It is not in dispute that on the complaint made by the complainant Dilip Hinduja an FIR was registered on 24.02.2012 against three accused persons namely Gurdeep Singh (Petitioner), Mohd. Shakeel Khan and Keshari Begum. It is alleged in the complaint that his Uncle late Idan Das and his cousin brother Kewal Ram was having 0.97 Hect. of land at Charoda, out of which 3000 sq.feet of the land was fraudulently alienated in the name of co-accused Keshari Begum by the present 7 petitioner Gurdeep Singh and Shakeel Khan by preparing a forged power of attorney. His brother has given him a power of attorney on 08.11.2011. He also gave the details of transaction in the complaint. On 02.08.2014, at the time of filing of first charge sheet, the police has considered that there is no sufficient evidence against the present petitioner Gurdeep Singh for filing charge sheet, however, the charge sheet was filed against Shakeel Khan who was arrested on 15.05.2014 showing Keshari Begum absconding. It has also been mentioned that charge sheet was filed under Section 173(8) CrPC. In the first charge sheet the present petitioner Gurdeep Singh S/o Keshar Singh was shown to be a witness and his name appears in the witness list. On 18.03.2016 when supplementary charge sheet was filed against co- accused Keshari Begum, the present petitioner Gurdeep Singh S/o Keshar Singh again shown to be a witness for prosecution side and his name appears in the witness list. 9. From FIR it transpires that there was allegation against the present petitioner that the land of late Idan Das and Kewal Ram was illegally transferred by the accused persons in the name of co-accused Keshari Begum by preparing forged document. The Rin Pustika of the land was given to the present petitioner Gurdeep Singh in the year 1994 for correction of revenue records, but he did not return the original documents of land to its owner. Subsequently the complainant came to know that the land was transferred in the name of Keshari Begum. From the statement of Sukhdev Singh Siddhu it also transpires that the present petitioner was also interested to purchase the subject land and initially the transaction was made between him and Laxman Singh. The 8 named FIR has been lodged by the complainant, but in absence of sufficient evidence initially the charge sheet was not filed against the present petitioner. 10. It further transpires from the ordersheet dated 08.01.2018 of the trial court which has been annexed at page No.262 of the petition that the police authority made an application for permission to file supplementary charge sheet against the present petitioner Gurdeep Singh as the complainant Dilip Hinduja had made a complaint that he has not been arrayed as an accused in the earlier charge sheet and on application being made by the prosecution, the trial court has observed in its order that the police is competent to file supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) CrPC as and when he received additional evidence or sufficient evidence against the accused. For that, there is no need to obtain any permission from the Magistrate. 11. Further, the supplementary charge sheet was filed against the petitioner on 12.08.2024 and cognizance of offences were taken against the petitioner on the same day. However, the petitioner has not challenged filing of supplementary charge sheet or order taking cognizance against him. On 17.09.2024 an application under Section 91 CrPC was filed by the petitioner for calling certain documents which were not the part of charge sheet saying that earlier the charge sheet was filed against co-accused persons in which there was no sufficient evidence against the petitioner to file charge sheet and to proceed with the trial against him. The trial court considering the application under Section 91 CrPC filed by the petitioner, called the enquiry report from the concerned revenue authority and vide its order dated 17.09.2024 9 directed the police authorities to produce enquiry report dated 27.12.2017, stay order dated 18.01.2018 and amended order dated 12.07.2019 for consideration on framing charge against the petitioner. The copy of documents were filed by the prosecution as per the order passed by the trial court and after considering those documents which were filed by the prosecution in compliance of the order dated 17.09.2024, the trial court discharged the petitioner from the alleged offences holding that Naib Tehsildar, Bhilai-3 have conducted a detailed enquiry, but the said enquiry report was not the part of charge sheet and as per the enquiry report there is evidence against the present petitioner Gurdeep Singh that he was also involved in the conspiracy with the co-accused persons Shakeel Khan and Keshari Begum, but there is no sufficient evidence against him (petitioner) to proceed with the trial. 12. The revisional court has considered in its order that at the time of framing of charge, the accused has no right to produce any documents in his defence and further the trial court while framing charge cannot consider the documents submitted by the accused. They should consider only those documents which were produced along with charge sheet. 13. The revisional court has observed in its order dated 13.11.2025 that FIR has been registered against the present petitioner also and presently after adding the offence of Section 120-B IPC, the supplementary charge sheet has been filed against him. It is alleged in the case that the accused persons on the basis of forged and fabricated documents got the land of Kewal Ram transferred in the 10 name of co-accused Keshari Begum. The Rin Pustika of subject land was obtained from the record of Civil Suit which was filed by the present petitioner in the Civil Suit and got it enquired from Naib Tehsildar, Bhilai-3, to which he reported that there are certain manipulation in the Rin Pustika which has been used for alienation of the subject property. Considering the conduct of parties, the offence under Section 120-B IPC has also been added. The revisional court has also considered that the trial court, based upon the enquiry report conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, Bhilai-3 has discharged the petitioner which is against the law governing the field. 14. The Supreme Court in case of Nitya Dharmananda @ K Lenin and Another Vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy and Another, 2018(2) SCC 93, has held in paragraph 8 as under: “8. Thus, it is clear that while ordinarily the Court has to proceed on the basis of material produced with the charge sheet for dealing with the issue of charge but if the court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the investigator/prosecutor, the court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same even if such document is not a part of the charge sheet. It does not mean that the defence has a right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. de hors the satisfaction of the court, at the stage of charge.” 15. Further, in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005(1)SCC 568 the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 25 as under: “25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is 'necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code'. The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the 11 section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the Court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. In so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it whether police or accused. If under Section 227 what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by Court and under a written order an officer in charge of police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.” 16. The powers of police to conduct further investigation, even after laying final report, is recognized under Section 173(8) CrPC. Dealing with the said issue, in Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs. State of A.P. & Others, 1999(5)SCC 740, the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 of its judgment held as under: “10. Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognised under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation. This has been so stated by this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1979 SC 1791). The only rider provided by the aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation.” 17. Recently in the matter of Rajnish Kumar Bishwakarma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in 2024 Live Law SC 537, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principals laid down in the 12 case of State of Orissa Vs. Devendra Nath Padhi (Supra) and held in Para 6 that:- “6. At the stage of framing charge, the trial court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. Section 227 of the Code provides for the eventuality when the accused shall be discharged. If not discharged, the charge against the accused is required to be framed under Section 228. These two sections read as under. Section 227 CrPC “227 Discharge--If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Section 228 CrPC “228. Framing of charge- (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which- (a) is not exclusively trable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused, and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried." 18. In the present case also after permission from the court, the police authority have filed the supplementary charge sheet against the present petitioner, in which, the trial court discharged the accused vide order dated 07.12.2024, however, the revisional court set aside the order of discharge of the present petitioner and remitted the matter back to proceed with the trial in accordance with law by impleading the present petitioner also as an accused in the case. 13 19. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Others, 2020 (2) SCC 290, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same and has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused to proceed with the trial. 20. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner does not help him as the facts and circumstances of those cases are distinguishable to the facts and consideration of present case. 21. Accordingly, this court does not find any scope for interference in the present petition. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder