1 2026:CGHC:26471-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1679 of 2026 1 - Ravindra Dubey S/o Loknathdhar Dubey Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Harratikra, Police Station Manipur, District Sarguja C.G. 2 - Abhishek Tiwari S/o Pramod Tiwari Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Gangapur, Near Subhash Nagar Chowk, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Surguja C.G. 3 - Shrikant Mishra S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Mishra Aged About 48 Years R/o Pratappur Naka Ambikapur, Police Station Kotwali, District Surguja C.G. 4 - Jait Ram @ Jaiyyat Ram S/o Late Chaaman Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Harratikra, Mahuapara, Police Station Manipur, District Surguja C.G. 5 - Satish Shukla S/o Late Gaya Prasad Shukla Aged About 73 Years R/o Bramhapara Rammandir Gali, Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Police Station Manipur, District Sarguja C.G. (Prosecution) 2 - Diwakar Shukla S/o Late T.P. Shukla Aged About 42 Years R/o W-02, Konark Residency, Behind Shailgiri Hotel, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For State : Shri Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.01 10:31:02 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 30.06.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking following reliefs: “First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 332/2024 dated 23.10.2024 registered against the petitioners at Police Station Manipur, District Ambikapur (Sarguja), CG. for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC; ii. Consequent Charge Sheet bearing No. 18/2025 dated 30.01.2025 emanating from the aforesaid FIR punishable for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC; iii. The order taking cognizance of the charge sheet dated 12.03.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja, CG.; iv. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2868/2026, parties being 'State of Chhattisgarh vs Ravindra Dubey & Others', pending before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.” 2 Facts of the case, in brief, are that, the complainant/respondent No.2 alleged that his father late T.P. Shukla, paid sale consideration of approximately Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioners in connection with a land transaction undertaken in the year 2014; however, the land was never registered in his father's name. It was further alleged that after death of his father in the year 2023, on examining certain records maintained at home he came to know about the said transaction. After enquiry from the concerned landowners he was informed that the amount received by them had already been returned through Petitioner No.1. The complainant further alleged that during the course of inquiry, 3 a consent letter dated 24.06.2023, purportedly evidencing refund of the sale consideration, bearing the signatures of witnesses, was produced. According to the complainant, the said consent letter was forged and fabricated. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR was registered on 23.10.2024 for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, followed by investigation and filing of the charge-sheet on 30.01.2025 against the petitioners. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the entire amount have already been refunded through Petitioner No.1 and a consent letter dated 24.06.2023 was duly executed between Petitioner No.1 and the father of complainant namely Late T.P. Shukla @ Tejeshwari Prasad Shukla in the presence of Petitioners No. 2&3 as attesting witness. They would submit that alleged land transaction of the year 2014 are essentially civil in nature. The complaint was made after an unexplained delay following the demise of original purchaser i.e. T.P. Shukla. It does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence and therefore the petition may be allowed and FIR followed by investigation and filing of charge-sheet against the petitioners may be quashed as no prima facie case against them is made out. 4 We have heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5 On a specific query being made to produce the original consent letter dated 24.06.2023, the counsel for the petitioners shows his inability to produce the same. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of non production of original consent letter dated 24.06.2023 which forms the very foundation of their 4 defence that entire sale consideration had been refunded back to the deceased. Mere reliance upon a photocopy of the alleged consent letter without producing the original document or laying any factual or legal basis for its non-production, renders the document incapable of inspiring confidence at this stage. In the absence of the original document, the genuineness, execution, and authenticity of the alleged consent letter cannot be verified, particularly when the complainant have specifically alleged the document to be forged and fabricated one. Thus, some role seems to have been played by the petitioners in the said transaction. Such disputed questions of fact require appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashment. 6 Thus, this court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that prima facie the ingredients that are required for framing of charge is made out. All the other aspects which the petitioners intend to assail are their defence which can only be looked into after the evidence of either side are adduced and the same cannot be looked into at this stage. 7 Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder