1 CGHC010246882026 2026:CGHC:27883-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1735 of 2026 1. Mohammad Mujamil Hashmi S/o Ahmad Hussain Aged About 34 Years R/o Mayapur, Kadari Manjil, Makan No. 55, Shastri Ward, Kuwa Gali Mayapur, Ambikapur, Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 2. Ahmad Ali S/o Ahmad Hussain, Aged About 47 Years Residence Of Mayapur, Kadari Manjil, Lalbahadur Shastri Ward, Kuwa Gali Mayapur, Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Ambikapur (City Kotawali), District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 2. Faizan Alam Ansari S/o Abdul Nain Ansari Aged About 36 Years R/o Kadir Manjil, Mayapur, Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.07 17:52:30 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Danish Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Danish Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “A. Quash and set aside the FIR bearing Crime No.161 of 2026, for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, dated 10.03.2026, registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja,Chhattisgarh i.e., Annexure P/1. B. Grant any other order(s), deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of petitioners.” 3 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are citizens of India and are entitled to the constitutional protections guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, including protection against arbitrary State action. He further submitted that the present petition seeks quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.161/2026 dated 10.03.2026 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The impugned FIR has been registered without any proper preliminary inquiry and without any material disclosing the commission of the alleged offences by the Petitioners. The prosecution case is based on the allegation that Late Jamila Khatoon, the recorded owner of the disputed land, had divided the property during her lifetime and that, in the year 2021, Ahmad Ali and Mujamil Hashmi executed a sale deed by allegedly using a forged Rin Pustika bearing No. P-1948564 instead of the original Rin Pustika No. L-22055, without obtaining permission under Section 165(6)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. 4. It is further contended by the learned Senior Advocate for te petitioners that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences and, at best, give rise to a civil dispute concerning the validity of the registered sale deed and consequential mutation proceedings. Much prior to the registration of the FIR, the complainant had approached the revenue authorities with identical allegations. Pursuant to a detailed inquiry conducted by the Tehsildar, Revenue Inspector and 4 Patwari under the directions of the Joint Collector, it was found that the mutation had been effected on the basis of a duly registered sale deed, no material was available to establish that the land was diverted land, no irregularity was found in the revenue records, and no objection had been raised at the time of mutation. The inquiry concluded that, if aggrieved, the complainant's remedy was to challenge the mutation before the competent revenue authority or the sale deed before the competent Civil Court. 5. Learned Senior Advocate further stated that the police authorities had also conducted an inquiry into the very same allegations and found no material disclosing the commission of any cognizable offence. The complainant's appeal under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code challenging the mutation was also dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who held that the mutation had rightly been effected on the basis of the registered sale deed and observed that any challenge to the validity of the sale deed could only be raised before the competent Civil Court. He also contended that the sale deed was duly executed and registered on 07.12.2021, and the entire dispute relates to title, mutation and the validity of the registered instrument, which are matters falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The criminal proceedings have been initiated only after the complainant failed before the revenue authorities, thereby giving a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. He further contended that the petitioners have throughout cooperated with the investigation and have already been granted protection by this Hon'ble Court. Petitioner No.1 was granted 5 anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.04.2026 passed in MCRCA No.581/2026, whereas Petitioner No.2 was granted regular bail vide order dated 27.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.3801/2026. The grant of such relief itself demonstrates that custodial interrogation was not considered necessary. 6. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly five years from the execution of the sale deed and only after the complainant had unsuccessfully pursued remedies before the revenue authorities. The impugned FIR has been registered without any fresh material despite earlier inquiries by both the revenue and police authorities having found no fraudulent conduct on the part of the petitioners. 7. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide, constitute an abuse of the process of law, and have been initiated solely to pressurize the Petitioners in a dispute which is essentially civil in nature. Since the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and quash FIR bearing Crime No.161/2026 dated 10.03.2026 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with all consequential proceedings, in the interest of justice. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR clearly 6 disclose the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is contended that the Petitioners, by using a forged Rin Pustika, fraudulently executed the sale deed in respect of the land in question without obtaining the requisite permission of the Collector. It is further submitted that the issues raised by the Petitioners involve disputed questions of fact requiring investigation and appreciation of evidence and, therefore, no case is made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 10. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is well settled. The jurisdiction to quash an FIR is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection and only in exceptional cases. Ordinarily, the High Court should not interfere with the investigation of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations contained in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj 7 v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 12. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations, appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further observed that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered and criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the threshold except in exceptional circumstances. 8 13. Recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation. It was further held that criminal proceedings can be quashed only where the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case and continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. 14. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that it has been registered pursuant to an inquiry conducted on the complaint of Faizan Alam Ansari. The prosecution case is that the Petitioners, by taking advantage of the old age, ill health and illiteracy of Late Jamila Khatoon, fraudulently executed a registered sale deed in respect of land bearing Khasra No.1668/14 by using a forged Loan Record Book (Rin Pustika) bearing No.P-1948564 in place of the original Loan Record Book No.L- 22055 and transferred the land without obtaining the mandatory permission of the Collector. It is further alleged that the forged Rin Pustika was illegally procured and used for registration of the sale deed, thereby constituting offences of cheating, forgery and using forged documents as genuine. 15. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the 9 aforesaid legal principles, this Court finds that the principal defence of the petitioners is that the dispute is purely civil in nature concerning the validity of the sale deed and consequential mutation proceedings, and that the complainant has initiated the criminal proceedings only after having failed before the revenue authorities. The Petitioners have also relied upon the inquiry reports submitted by the revenue authorities and the police authorities to contend that no fraudulent conduct was found on their part. However, these submissions constitute the defence of the Petitioners and necessarily involve disputed questions of fact. Whether the sale deed was executed by using a forged Rin Pustika, whether the said document is genuine or forged, whether the Petitioners had dishonestly procured or fabricated the same, whether the transfer required prior permission of the Collector and whether the Petitioners possessed fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of execution of the sale deed are all issues which can be effectively examined only during the course of investigation and, if necessary, during trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. 16. The mere fact that the dispute also gives rise to civil or revenue proceedings or that the petitioners rely upon inquiry reports favourable to them cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings when the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is well settled that the availability of a civil remedy or pendency of civil or revenue proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose the ingredients of offences punishable under the 10 penal law. At this stage, this Court is not required to appreciate the defence put forth by the petitioners or record findings regarding the correctness of the rival claims. The truthfulness of the allegations and the evidentiary value of the material relied upon by either party can only be examined during the investigation and subsequent proceedings before the competent Court. 17. Having regard to the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, this Court finds that the prosecution has specifically alleged that the petitioners, by taking advantage of the old age, ill health and illiteracy of Late Jamila Khatoon, fraudulently executed a registered sale deed in respect of the land in question by using a forged Loan Record Book (Rin Pustika) bearing No. P-1948564 in place of the original Loan Record Book No. L-22055 and transferred the property without obtaining the requisite permission of the Collector. The FIR further alleges that the forged Rin Pustika was dishonestly procured and used for facilitating the registration of the sale deed, thereby constituting offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. At this stage, the aforesaid allegations, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences requiring a thorough investigation. The defence sought to be projected by the Petitioners, including the findings recorded in the revenue proceedings and the plea that the dispute is civil in nature, involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. This Court cannot undertake an appreciation of the evidence or record findings on the 11 genuineness of the rival claims while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories illustratively carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) and reiterated in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Since the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, if accepted at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the issues raised by the Petitioners require investigation and adjudication on evidence, no case for quashing the FIR is made out. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 19. It is, however, made clear that the observations recorded herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The Investigating Agency shall proceed with the investigation independently and strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan