1 CGHC010086082026 2026:CGHC:29272-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 678 of 2026 Satyendra Bhardwaj S/o Late Basant Kumar Bhardwaj Aged About 50 Years R/o Aghariya Para Ward No. 10 Jawalpur Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- SHO Pamgarh Police Station Mulmula Distt. Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Jageshwar Prasad Tandan S/o Bhagatram Tandan Aged About 32 Years R/o Pamgarh Tahsil Pamgarh District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Devendra Chaudhary Then SDM (Revenue) Pamgarh District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Karuna Aher Then Tahsildar Pamgarh, Tahsil Office Pamgarh District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.07.13 17:17:24 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief(s):- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to allow the application by making an order to quash the FIR no. 30/2026 dated 13.01.2026 for offence 420 467 468, 471, 34 of IPC pending before police station Mulmula as crime no. 30/2026 and discharge from the case to the applicant.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned First Information Report has been registered in a wholly mechanical and arbitrary manner without any independent application of mind by the police authorities. It is contended that the petitioner, while serving as Patwari in Village Mulmula between the years 2016 and 2021, had merely discharged his official duties in accordance with the revenue records and the orders passed by the competent Revenue Court. The entire criminal prosecution has been initiated solely on the basis of a communication issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pamgarh, directing registration of an FIR, without any departmental enquiry, preliminary verification or examination of the relevant revenue records. It is argued that the police registered Crime No. 30 of 2026 on the strength of the said communication without conducting any independent inquiry to ascertain whether the ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code were at all made out against the petitioner. 3 4. Learned counsel would further submit that the very foundation of the prosecution case is demonstrably erroneous and contrary to the material available on record. Attention of the Court is invited to the show-cause notice dated 29.10.2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), pursuant to which the petitioner appeared before the competent authority and recorded his detailed statement. In his statement, the petitioner categorically explained that the correction directed by the Revenue Court in Revenue Case No.124/B-121/2015-16 had already been incorporated in the manual revenue records and that the concerned Khasra numbers stood recorded as Government land in the Khasra Panchshala. The petitioner specifically stated that he had no role whatsoever in making or altering entries in the online Bhuiyan portal and that he had no knowledge as to how the name of Prafulla came to be reflected in the online records. He further pointed out that the B-1, Kisan Kitab and other documents allegedly submitted before Axis Bank did not bear his signatures and that the signatures appearing thereon were forged. Despite these categorical assertions, supported by the revenue records themselves, the authorities proceeded to implicate the petitioner without conducting any investigation regarding the alleged forgery or identifying the person who had actually manipulated the online records. 5. It is next contended that the entire revenue record continues to reflect the disputed land as Government land and there is no material whatsoever indicating that the petitioner either derived any benefit from the alleged transaction or participated in any conspiracy with the 4 principal accused, namely Prafulla and others, who are alleged to have obtained the loan by producing forged documents. Learned counsel submits that the investigation report itself attributes the illegal mortgage and fraudulent loan transaction to the private accused, while the petitioner has been roped in merely because he happened to be the Patwari of the concerned Halka during the relevant period. There is no allegation that the petitioner prepared or signed any forged document, altered any official record, presented any false document before the bank, or facilitated the sanction of the loan. The essential ingredients constituting the offences of cheating, forgery, use of forged documents or common intention are therefore completely absent insofar as the petitioner is concerned. At best, the allegations relate to discharge of official functions, for which the authorities were required to examine the matter departmentally before initiating criminal prosecution. 6. Learned counsel would lastly contend that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. It is argued that the petitioner has been prosecuted for acts allegedly performed in the course of discharge of his official duties without obtaining the mandatory sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the police have acted in complete disregard of the settled principles governing registration and investigation of criminal cases against public servants and have also failed to adhere to the safeguards laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. According to learned counsel, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their 5 entirety, they do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner nor establish his involvement in the alleged conspiracy. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of mere suspicion, conjectures and administrative correspondence, without any legally admissible material connecting the petitioner with the alleged forgery or fraudulent mortgage transaction. It is, therefore, submitted that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of the process of Court, warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned FIR has been registered pursuant to a detailed inquiry conducted by the competent revenue authorities on the basis of repeated complaints made by one Amardas Khande regarding illegal mutation and mortgage of Government land bearing Khasra Nos. 4/6 and 4/12 situated at Village Mulmula. During the inquiry, it was found that although the land stood recorded as Government land in the revenue records from the year 2016-17, the same came to be reflected in the name of one Prafulla, son of Ravindranath, in the revenue records of the year 2020, on the strength of which he mortgaged the land with Axis Bank, Dipka and obtained a loan of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), after considering the investigation report and the material collected during inquiry, directed registration of 6 the FIR against all persons found involved in the alleged forgery and fraudulent transaction. 8. Learned State counsel would further submit that during the course of inquiry, the documents obtained from Axis Bank, including the B-1, P- 2 Kisan Kitab, Form-C and other loan papers, as well as the revenue records, disclosed that the Government land had been fraudulently shown in the name of the private borrower without any lawful conveyance or registration. The inquiry further revealed that the land was never transferred through any registered document, thereby indicating manipulation of the revenue records. Since the revenue entries reflecting the land in the name of the private individual were made during the tenure of the then Halka Patwari, Shri Satyendra Singh Bhardwaj, his role also surfaced during the inquiry, along with that of the principal accused Prafulla and the co-applicant Mirza Yadav, necessitating registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. 9. It is lastly submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences requiring a thorough investigation. At the stage of registration of the FIR, the investigating agency is only required to ascertain whether the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and not to conclusively determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the investigation is still at a nascent stage and the allegations involve forgery of Government records, illegal mutation of Government land and 7 fraudulent procurement of a bank loan, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the FIR, as the disputed questions of fact can only be examined upon completion of investigation. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 11. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj 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 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 8 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. 13. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where 9 non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 14. Very 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 further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 15. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the First Information Report cannot be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or wholly devoid of substance so as to warrant exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. The FIR has not been registered merely on the basis of bald allegations made by the complainant. Rather, it has been lodged pursuant to an inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pamgarh, on complaints alleging fraudulent mutation of Government land bearing Khasra Nos. 4/6 and 4/12, followed by illegal mortgage of the said land with Axis Bank for obtaining a loan. The inquiry report records that although the land stood recorded as Government land in the revenue 10 records from the year 2016-17, it was subsequently reflected in the name of a private individual, namely Prafulla, son of Ravindranath, who allegedly availed a loan by mortgaging the said land. During the inquiry, documents were obtained from the concerned Bank and other revenue authorities, whereafter the competent authority directed registration of the FIR against the persons whose involvement prima facie surfaced. Whether the allegations ultimately culminate in a successful prosecution is a matter which falls within the domain of the investigating agency and, if a final report is filed, the competent criminal Court. 16. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated despite there being no material to indicate his involvement in the alleged forgery or illegal mortgage of Government land. It has been contended that the petitioner merely discharged his official duties as Patwari, that the corrections directed by the Revenue Court had already been incorporated in the manual revenue records, and that he neither made any online mutation nor signed the B-1, Kisan Kitab or other documents relied upon by the borrower for obtaining the loan. This Court is unable to examine the correctness of these factual assertions in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Whether the petitioner had any role in the alleged manipulation of the revenue records, whether the online entries were made by him or by some other person, whether the documents relied upon by the Bank bear forged signatures, and whether he shared any common intention with the other accused are all disputed questions of fact requiring investigation and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at 11 this preliminary stage. 17. Equally untenable is the submission that the allegations contained in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. A plain reading of the FIR reveals specific allegations that Government land was illegally reflected in the name of a private individual, who thereafter mortgaged the same with a Bank for obtaining a substantial loan, and that during the inquiry the role of the then Halka Patwari also surfaced. The correctness of these allegations, the extent of the petitioner's involvement and the evidentiary value of the material collected during the inquiry are matters to be examined during investigation. At this stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences and not whether the allegations are ultimately capable of being proved beyond reasonable doubt. 18. The submission that the petitioner had no concern with the loan transaction, derived no pecuniary benefit therefrom and that the principal allegations are directed against Prafulla and other private individuals also cannot constitute a ground for quashing the FIR. The prosecution case is not founded solely upon the allegation that the petitioner obtained the loan; rather, it is alleged that the illegal mutation of Government land and the consequential mortgage were facilitated by manipulation of the revenue records during the relevant period, in which the role of the petitioner, being the then Halka Patwari, requires investigation. Whether such allegations are ultimately substantiated by 12 legally admissible evidence is a matter that can be determined only after completion of investigation and not in proceedings invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 19. From a perusal of the FIR and the inquiry report forming its basis, it cannot be said that the criminal law has been set in motion mechanically or without any material whatsoever. The FIR itself discloses that the competent revenue authority examined the revenue records, obtained documents from Axis Bank, issued notices to the borrower and co-applicant, and found prima facie material indicating commission of offences relating to forgery, cheating and use of forged documents before directing registration of the FIR. At this nascent stage of investigation, this Court would be slow in stifling a legitimate investigation by entering into disputed questions of fact or by appreciating the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner. 20. Upon cumulative consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR and the material referred to therein, this Court is satisfied that the allegations, if taken at their face value and accepted for the limited purpose of the present proceedings, disclose the commission of cognizable offences requiring a fair and complete investigation. The allegations cannot be characterised as inherently absurd, manifestly frivolous or so improbable that no prudent person could reach a prima facie conclusion regarding the commission of the alleged offences. As reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the power to quash criminal proceedings should be 13 exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations fail to disclose any cognizable offence or continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. The decision in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) also reiterates that the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, ought not to undertake an appreciation of disputed questions of fact or evaluate the defence of the accused at the threshold. Judged on the aforesaid parameters, no exceptional circumstance is made out warranting interference with the impugned FIR. 21. The defence projected by the petitioner, namely that he merely performed his official duties, had no role in making the online entries, that the signatures appearing on the loan documents are forged, that sanction under Section 197 of the Code was necessary, and that he has been falsely implicated on account of his previous posting, are all matters constituting his defence. These contentions involve disputed questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. The High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, does not conduct a mini trial or adjudicate upon the correctness of rival factual claims. 22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case does not fall within any of the categories illustratively carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and reaffirmed in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 14 of the BNSS for quashing the impugned FIR. The allegations contained in the FIR, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences and call for a fair and complete investigation. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. However, considering that the FIR was registered on 13.01.2026 and the investigation has remained pending for a considerable period, it is directed that the Investigating Officer shall proceed with the investigation diligently and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made herein. It is made clear that the observations recorded in this order are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 23. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu