1 2026:CGHC:25095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P No.523 of 2025 Shailesh Dhurandhar S/o Keshav Dhurandhar Aged About 38 Years R/o Sundar Nagar Police Station D.D. Nagar Raipur Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer Police Station DDU Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Estate Officer And Smt. Neetu Ganveer C.G. Housing Board Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Then Deputy Registrar M.R. Yadav Registrar Office, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Sangeeta Saxena W/o Anil Kumar Saxena Aged About 57 Years R/o HIG 1/88 Sector 01 Pt. Deendayal Nagar Daganiya Daripur (C.G.) GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.06.23 10:40:40 +0530 2 6 - Smt. Divya Thakur W/o Balram Singh Thakur Aged About 46 Years R/o Shanti Vihar Colony Daganiya Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner :Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.06.2026 1. Challenge in the present Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to the order dated 07.12.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.300 of 2023 affirming the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, whereby the prayer of the Petitioner for registration of an FIR was declined. The Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur to register an FIR on the basis of his complaint. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned JMFC, Raipur alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B r/w Section 34 of the IPC by the Respondents. It was alleged that the Petitioner and his father were partners of 3 M/s Dhurandhar Builders and Developers and that the land bearing Khasra No.153/3 admeasuring 0.340 hectare, situated at Village Daganiya, Tehsil and District Raipur, continued to stand in the name of the firm in the revenue records. According to the Petitioner, though acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board in respect of the said land, the proceedings were subsequently closed without acquisition of the land and without payment of any compensation. It is further alleged that a portion of the land measuring 238.5 square meters was thereafter transferred through a sale deed dated 18.01.2022 in favour of private Respondents without the consent or knowledge of the Petitioner. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents, in connivance with officials of the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, had fraudulently manipulated records and executed the sale transaction, thereby committing offences of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy. It is further alleged that that despite submitting complaints to the concerned Police Station as well as to the Superintendent of Police under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C., no FIR was registered. The police conducted a preliminary enquiry and closed the matter observing that the dispute was non- cognizable in nature. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner 4 approached the learned JMFC by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking a direction for registration of FIR. The learned JMFC, upon consideration of the material placed on record, rejected the application vide order dated 24.05.2023 holding that the dispute appeared to be predominantly civil in nature. The Criminal Revision preferred by the Petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the learned 5th Sessions Judge, Raipur vide order dated 07.12.2024 affirming the findings recorded by the Magistrate. Challenging both the aforesaid orders and seeking a direction for registration of FIR, the present Petition has been filed. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the facts of the case in their proper perspective and have erroneously treated the dispute as purely civil in nature. It is contended that the allegations made in the complaint, if taken at their face value, clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471and 120-B r/w Section 34 of the IPC. He further submits that the land in question continues to stand in the name of the Petitioner's firm in the revenue records and that a portion thereof was allegedly transferred by way of a sale deed in favour of private Respondents without the consent, authority 5 or knowledge of the Petitioner. According to him, the allegations disclose fraudulent manipulation of records, forgery and criminal conspiracy, which cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that the dispute relates to immovable property. It is argued that despite the Petitioner having exhausted the remedies available under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. by approaching the concerned police authorities and the Superintendent of Police, no FIR was registered. Instead, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the matter was closed by treating it as non- cognizable. In such circumstances, the Petitioner was justified in invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He further argued that while considering an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is only required to examine whether the complaint and accompanying material disclose commission of a cognizable offence warranting investigation. It is contended that the learned Magistrate as well as the revisional Court failed to undertake such an exercise and rejected the proceedings solely on the premise that the dispute is civil in nature. Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. , reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 and 6 Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, learned Senior Advocate argues that where information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory and in a case where the police fail to act, the Magistrate is empowered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct registration of FIR and proper investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that the Courts below committed a jurisdictional error in declining to exercise such power despite the allegations disclosing cognizable offences. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders dated 24.05.2023 and 07.12.2024 be set aside and a direction be issued to the concerned police authorities for registration of FIR against the private Respondents and other concerned persons in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the Petition and supports the impugned orders. It is submitted that both the learned Magistrate and the revisional Court have rightly held that the dispute pertains to ownership and transfer of immovable property and is essentially civil in nature. It is contended that the allegations made by the Petitioner do not prima facie disclose commission of any cognizable offence so as to warrant a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR. She further submits that the police 7 authorities conducted a preliminary enquiry and found the matter to be non-cognizable and the learned Magistrate, after considering the material placed on record, found no sufficient ground to direct registration of FIR, which finding has rightly been affirmed by the revisional Court, therefore, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court and prays for dismissal of the Petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The challenge in the present Petition is to the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur rejecting the Petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned 5th Sessions Judge, Raipur affirming the same in revision. 7. A perusal of the complaint filed by the Petitioner would show that the grievance essentially relates to the title, ownership and transfer of a parcel of land, which according to the Petitioner continued to stand in the name of his firm. The allegations are founded upon the assertion that a portion of the said land was transferred without his consent and on the basis of allegedly incorrect revenue records. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the allegations and the 8 material placed before him, came to the conclusion that the controversy involved is predominantly civil in nature and did not warrant issuance of a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR. The said finding has been affirmed by the revisional Court. 8. This Court does not find any infirmity in the approach adopted by the Courts below. The jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not required to be exercised mechanically merely because allegations of cheating, forgery or fraud have been levelled. The Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case and determine whether the allegations, on their face, disclose commission of cognizable offences necessitating police investigation. In the present case, both the Courts below, upon appreciation of the material available on record, have concurrently found that the dispute essentially emanates from rival claims relating to immovable property and that no case for exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is made out. 9. The judgments relied upon by the Petitioner in Lalita Kumari and Sakiri Vasu (supra) are of no assistance to him in the facts of the present case. While there can be no dispute with the proposition that registration of an FIR is mandatory where information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, 9 the learned Magistrate as well as the revisional Court, upon due consideration of the allegations and material available on record, have concurrently held that no such case is made out and that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. This Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the said findings warranting interference. 10. It is also well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly and only where manifest injustice or abuse of process of law is demonstrated. No such circumstance is made out in the present case warranting interference with the well-reasoned orders passed by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the revisional Court. Accordingly, the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur and the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned 5th Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2023 are hereby affirmed. 11. Consequently, the present Cr.M.P, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri