1 CGHC010278602026 2026:CGHC:30823-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1882 of 2026 Mohammad Yusuf Ansari S/o Late Mohammad Ali Ansari Aged About 70 Years R/o Bhata, Police Station Samri, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kusmi, Distirct Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. 2. Shashikant Dubey S/o Late Ramji Dubey R/o Tehsil Office Samri District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.22 10:34:51 +0530 2 2. Although the present petition was listed today for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it was taken up for final hearing and is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and further be pleased to quash the impugned First Information Report bearing Crime No. 135 of 2024 dated 04.12.2024 registered at Police Station, Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 644 and 699, admeasuring 4.176 hectares and 1.036 hectares, respectively, situated at Village Bata, Tahsil Samri, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, were originally recorded in the name of Gulmali, son of Anwar, in the Adhikar Abhilekh of the year 1954-55. It is submitted that the revenue records consistently establish the title of the petitioner's predecessors over the said lands. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the death of Gulmali, the aforesaid lands were duly recorded in the name of his son, Mohd. Ali, son of Gulmali, and the Kishtabandi 3 Khatauni as well as the Rin Pustika continued to reflect his name as the recorded tenure-holder. He further argued that Mohd. Ali Ansari expired on 28.06.2020, leaving behind four sons, namely Ayub Ansari, Yusuf Ansari (the petitioner), Ashfaq Ansari and Ajajul Ansari. Since the petitioner had taken care of his father during his lifetime, the other brothers voluntarily consented to transfer the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 644, 699 and 737, admeasuring in total 6.062 hectares, in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said consent, the Gram Panchayat, Bata, passed a proposal on 26.07.2020 recommending mutation of the said lands in the petitioner's name. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thereafter one Gahnu, son of Dhekchu, preferred an application before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kusmi, alleging that the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 644 and 699, measuring about 13 acres, were Government lands and that the petitioner had managed to secure mutation of the said lands in his favour with the assistance of revenue authorities. Acting upon the said application, the S.D.O. registered Case No. A-6-registered A/202410270300046/2024-25. It is submitted that upon receipt of notice, the petitioner duly appeared before the S.D.O. and produced the old revenue records, including the Adhikar Abhilekh of the year 1954-55, demonstrating that the lands had all along stood recorded in the names of his predecessors. However, despite the documentary evidence placed on record, the S.D.O., by order dated 29.11.2024, directed reversion of the aforesaid lands in the name of the Government. He also submitted that pursuant to the said order, 4 respondent No. 2 lodged a report on 04.12.2024 at Police Station Kusmi, on the basis whereof Crime No. 135/2024 was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that thereafter petitioner preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which came to be rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing MCRCA No. 84/2025, and by order dated 16.01.2025, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further stated that being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the S.D.O., the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur. The Commissioner, by order dated 28.01.2025, has stayed the operation and execution of the order dated 29.11.2024, thereby rendering the very foundation of the criminal prosecution doubtful. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR dated 04.12.2024 is wholly illegal, amounts to abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed. It is argued that the lands in question have remained recorded in the names of the petitioner's predecessors since the year 1954-55, and after the death of Mohd. Ali Ansari, the petitioner acquired the lands through a family arrangement based upon the consent of his brothers. Thus, the petitioner has not dishonestly or fraudulently claimed Government land as his own. It is vehemently contended that the petitioner has neither committed any act of cheating 5 nor prepared or used any forged or fabricated document. The mutation in his favour was effected on the basis of long-standing revenue records and the consent of the legal heirs, and not on the strength of any fabricated document. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute, at its highest, is one relating to title and mutation of immovable property, which is essentially civil in nature. Merely because the revenue authorities have passed an order adverse to the petitioner, the same cannot give rise to criminal liability, particularly when the said order itself has been stayed by the appellate authority. 10. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 401, wherein it has been held that where the dispute is essentially civil in nature and the ingredients of the alleged offences are absent, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. Learned counsel also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sachin Garg v. State of U.P., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82, wherein it has been reiterated that disputes which are essentially civil or commercial cannot be given a criminal colour by merely employing the language of penal provisions, and that criminal proceedings initiated in such circumstances deserve to be quashed. He further submitted that none of the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are made 6 out from the allegations contained in the FIR. The registration of the impugned FIR is, therefore, actuated by mala fides and constitutes a misuse of the criminal process for resolving a revenue dispute. 12. Lastly, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bimala Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar in SLP (CRL) No. 834-835 of 2023, wherein it has been held that the process of criminal law cannot be used for arm twisting and money recovery as the recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the same principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the present criminal proceedings have been initiated to exert pressure upon the petitioner in respect of a dispute which is fundamentally civil and revenue in nature. 13. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition. He submits that the impugned FIR has been registered pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kusmi, whereby the lands in question were directed to be reverted in the name of the Government after recording a prima facie finding that the petitioner had managed to get Government land mutated in his name. It is submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and, therefore, the investigation has rightly been set into motion. Learned State counsel further submits that the plea of the petitioner that the lands belong to his predecessors, the validity of the mutation, and the effect of the stay 7 granted by the Commissioner are all disputed questions of fact which can only be examined during investigation and trial and not in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. He further submits that as per the instructions received by him from the Investigating Officer, the investigation is at the concluding stage and the charge-sheet shall be filed before the competent Court within a period of two weeks. 14. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 15. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that the same has been registered on the basis of a written report lodged by respondent No.2 pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kusmi, wherein it was found that the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 644 and 699 had been mutated in the name of the petitioner although they were alleged to be Government lands. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.135/2024 has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The investigation is presently at its final stage. 16. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the 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 8 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. 17. 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 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. 18. 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 9 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. 19. 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. 20. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid principles, the principal contention of the petitioner is that the lands in question have remained recorded in the names of his predecessors since the year 1954-55 and that after the death of Mohd. Ali Ansari, the lands came to the petitioner pursuant to a family arrangement based on the consent of his brothers. The petitioner has 10 also relied upon the stay order granted by the Commissioner against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and has contended that the dispute is purely civil in nature. However, these submissions constitute the defence of the petitioner and necessarily involve disputed questions relating to the nature of the land, validity of the mutation entries, genuineness of the documents relied upon by the parties and the circumstances in which the mutation came to be effected. Such issues require thorough investigation and appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 21. Merely because proceedings relating to mutation or title are pending before the revenue authorities or the operation of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been stayed by the Commissioner, it cannot be held at this stage that no criminal offence is disclosed. The allegations contained in the FIR specifically attribute dishonest mutation of Government land in favour of the petitioner by using forged or fabricated documents in conspiracy with others. Whether the said allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter to be investigated by the investigating agency and, if necessary, adjudicated during trial. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose commission of cognizable offences. 22. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner in Vinod Natesan (supra), Sachin Garg (supra) and Bimala Tiwari (supra) undoubtedly lay down the settled principle that purely civil disputes should not be 11 given a criminal colour. However, the applicability of those decisions would depend upon the facts of each case. In the present matter, the FIR contains specific allegations of cheating, forgery and use of forged documents in securing mutation of land alleged to be Government land. At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations are so inherently improbable or absurd that no offence is made out. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions do not advance the case of the petitioner at this preliminary stage. 23. Having regard to the allegations contained in the impugned FIR and the material available on record, 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. The contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings and are required to be examined during the course of investigation and, if necessary, during trial. 24. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for quashing of the impugned FIR is made out. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 25. Learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the investigation is at the concluding stage and the charge-sheet shall be filed within a period of two weeks. Considering the said submission, the 12 Superintendent of Police, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, is directed to ensure that the investigation is concluded and the final police report/charge-sheet under Section 193(3) of the BNSS is filed before the competent Court, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 26. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the final report so submitted, he shall be at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available to him in law, including challenging the same before the competent Court. It is further clarified that the observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not influence the investigation or the proceedings before the competent Court in any manner. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan