1 CGHC010152182022 2026:CGHC:32849-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 415 of 2022 1 - Shriram Agrawal S/o Gokul Chand Agrawal Aged About 57 Years R/o Karkhana Mohalla, Main Road, Katghora, P.S. Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mrs. Sudha Agrawal W/o Shriram Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Karkhana Mohalla, Main Road, Katghora, P.S. Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent of Police Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Station House Officer P.S Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mihir Kumar Sinha S/o B.M. Sinha Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Bharat Mata Mandir, Katghora, Post, Tehsil And P.S - Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.4 : Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.07.31 10:22:55 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.07.2026 1. It is noticed that by order dated 12.09.2022, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 was granted three weeks' time to file a reply-affidavit. However, despite the lapse of considerable time, no reply-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. The State has already filed its reply on 09.06.2022. Considering that the present writ petition has been pending since the year 2022 and, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally on merits. 2. Heard Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.. 3. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners call in question the legality and validity of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of FIR/Crime No. 196/2021 registered at Police Station Katghora, District Korba, for offences under Sections 384, 458, 341, 427, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), the order/memo dated 18.02.2021 passed by the learned JMFC, Katghora under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal 3 Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’). directing registration of the FIR, the consequential charge-sheet filed under Sections 385, 451, 506 and 34 of the IPC, and all further consequential proceedings. The petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire Records pertaining to the matter bearing Crime No.196/2021 registered at P.S Katghora, District Korba (C.G). 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned Charge-sheet (including FIR), Memo dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure P/1 and P/2)and the entire consequential proceedings ((if any)] in lieu of the aforesaid. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favor of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 4. The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioners are owners and possessors of certain parcels of land situated at Village Nawagaon, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba. The respondent No.4 owns adjoining land, which according to the petitioners is surrounded by private lands and has no independent access. Disputes arose between the parties regarding access to the respondent No.4's land and alleged obstruction caused by construction raised by the petitioners. Respondent No.4 initially approached the revenue 4 authorities seeking a pathway and drainage, while simultaneously making complaints before the police alleging criminal intimidation and attempts by the petitioners to grab his land. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the complaints made by respondent No.4 were enquired into by the police and revenue authorities, which found no cognizable offence to have been committed and reported that the petitioners had raised construction over their own land without obstructing any public access. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC, Katghora, pursuant to which an order dated 18.02.2021 was passed directing registration of an FIR. On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet only for offences under Sections 385, 451, 506 and 34 of the IPC, dropping the remaining offences originally mentioned in the FIR. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 6. Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature concerning the alleged right of access to the land of respondent No.4. According to him, respondent No.4, having failed to secure any favourable order from the revenue authorities, has resorted to criminal proceedings only with an oblique motive to pressurize the petitioners and to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. He further submits that prior to registration of the impugned FIR, complaints made by respondent No.4 were duly enquired into by the police authorities and 5 the Tehsildar. The enquiry reports categorically recorded that there was no public road leading to the complainant's land, the petitioners had constructed on their own land, no obstruction had been created by them and no cognizable offence was made out. Despite these findings, respondent No.4 invoked the jurisdiction of the learned JMFC under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., resulting in the impugned FIR and subsequent charge-sheet. 7. Mr. Bhaduri would further contend that even after investigation, the police itself found no material to substantiate several allegations contained in the FIR and consequently dropped the offences under Sections 384, 458, 341 and 427 IPC while filing the charge-sheet. He submits that except for the self-serving statements of the complainant, there is no independent material collected during investigation to establish the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners, and the documents forming part of the charge-sheet rather support the defence of the petitioners. Lastly, it is submitted that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and have been initiated solely to settle personal scores and exert pressure upon the petitioners in relation to the land dispute. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR, the order dated 18.02.2021 passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the consequential charge-sheet and all further criminal proceedings be quashed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, opposes the submissions advanced on 6 behalf of the petitioners and submits that the impugned FIR and the consequential charge-sheet have been registered and filed strictly in accordance with law after a fair and impartial investigation. He would contend that the investigation revealed prima facie material disclosing the commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, the investigating agency rightly submitted the charge-sheet before the competent Court. It is further submitted that merely because certain offences mentioned in the FIR were not ultimately included in the charge-sheet, the same would not vitiate the criminal proceedings. He would further submit that it is a settled principle of law that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia of the prosecution case and is only intended to set the criminal law into motion. Once the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the investigating agency is duty-bound to investigate the matter, and the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations is to be examined during investigation and trial. 9. Mr. Shukla also contended that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Since the allegations in the present case disclose a prima facie case and the charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of material collected during investigation, no ground for interference is made out and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present petition. 10. Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, adopts the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Advocate 7 General and further submits that the allegations made in the complaint, the material collected during investigation and the statements of the witnesses disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. He submits that the investigating agency, after conducting a fair and proper investigation, has filed the charge-sheet on the basis of sufficient material and, therefore, no case for quashment of the criminal proceedings is made out. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the Bar. We have also perused the pleadings of the parties, the documents placed on record, the impugned FIR, the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet and the material collected during the course of investigation. 12. The core issue which falls for consideration is whether the continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 13. From the pleadings and the documents brought on record, it is evident that the genesis of the dispute between the parties is a long- standing dispute relating to immovable property, more particularly concerning the alleged access to the land of respondent No.4. The record would reveal that respondent No.4 had initially approached the 8 revenue authorities seeking a pathway and drainage in respect of his land. Simultaneously, complaints were also made before the police authorities alleging criminal intimidation and obstruction by the petitioners. The competent revenue authorities as well as the police authorities conducted enquiries into the allegations and found that there was no public road leading to the land of respondent No.4, that the petitioners had raised construction over their own land and that no cognizable offence was made out against them. Consequently, no criminal action was initiated at that stage. 14. It is only thereafter that respondent No.4 invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., pursuant to which directions were issued for registration of the FIR. Significantly, even after a full-fledged investigation, the investigating agency itself found no material to support several allegations incorporated in the FIR and consequently omitted the offences punishable under Sections 384, 458, 341 and 427 of the IPC while submitting the charge-sheet. Thus, the very investigation conducted by the State considerably diluted the allegations originally levelled in the FIR. 15. A careful examination of the charge-sheet further reveals that except the statements of the complainant and his interested witnesses, no independent material has been collected by the investigating agency demonstrating the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 385, 451 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. On 9 the contrary, the revenue records, enquiry reports and documents collected during investigation substantially indicate that the dispute between the parties essentially revolves around access to land and the rights claimed over adjoining properties. 16. It is trite law that merely because a civil dispute gives rise to certain allegations, the same cannot automatically be permitted to assume the colour of a criminal offence. Criminal law cannot be permitted to be employed as a weapon for settling private scores or exerting pressure in disputes relating to immovable property. The criminal justice system cannot be allowed to become an instrument of coercion where the foundational dispute is overwhelmingly civil in character. 17. The Supreme Court has consistently held that where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, primarily disclose a civil dispute and the basic ingredients of the alleged criminal offences are absent, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Recently, in S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 917, the Supreme Court reiterated that although civil and criminal proceedings may coexist, in the absence of any element of criminality, continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed. 18. Likewise, in Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 614, the Supreme Court held that where the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent and the dispute is essentially civil in nature, 10 continuation of criminal proceedings serves no useful purpose and deserves to be interdicted in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court further reiterated that the celebrated principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 continue to govern the exercise of jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings. 19. The Supreme Court has again reiterated that criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes or wreaking vengeance. Where the allegations merely seek to give a criminal colour to a property dispute and the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences are conspicuously absent, the High Court would be justified in quashing the FIR as well as the consequential charge-sheet in order to prevent abuse of the process of law. 20. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid well-settled principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is a fit one for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law. The record reveals that the genesis of the dispute between the parties is a long-standing dispute concerning immovable property, particularly with regard to the alleged access to the land of respondent No.4. Before invoking the criminal machinery, respondent No.4 had initially approached the revenue authorities seeking a pathway and drainage in respect of his land. Simultaneously, complaints were also made before the police authorities alleging criminal intimidation and obstruction by the petitioners. The competent authorities, upon 11 conducting enquiry, found that there was no public pathway leading to the land of respondent No.4, that the petitioners had raised construction over their own land and that no cognizable offence was made out against them. It was only after respondent No.4 failed to obtain the desired relief before the revenue as well as the police authorities that he invoked the jurisdiction of the learned JMFC under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., pursuant to which the impugned FIR came to be registered. 21. Equally significant is the fact that even after a full-fledged investigation, the investigating agency itself found no material to substantiate the allegations constituting offences under Sections 384, 458, 341 and 427 of the IPC and accordingly omitted the said offences while submitting the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet ultimately came to be filed only for the offences punishable under Sections 385, 451, 506 and 34 of the IPC. A careful scrutiny of the charge-sheet further reveals that except the statements of the complainant and his interested witnesses, no independent material has been collected by the investigating agency to establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. On the contrary, the revenue records and enquiry reports collected during investigation substantially indicate that the dispute between the parties essentially relates to access to the land of respondent No.4 and the rights claimed by the respective parties over their adjoining properties. 22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid facts unmistakably demonstrate that the criminal proceedings have been 12 initiated primarily in consequence of an underlying property dispute with the apparent object of exerting pressure upon the petitioners. Criminal law cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for settling private or civil disputes or for achieving an object which could not be secured before the competent civil or revenue forum. Permitting the petitioners to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial in the absence of prima facie material satisfying the essential ingredients of the alleged offences would amount to allowing the criminal process to be used as an instrument of harassment and oppression. Such continuation of the impugned proceedings would constitute a clear abuse of the process of the Court and would result in a miscarriage of justice. This Court is satisfied that the present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) as reiterated in Ashok Kumar Jain (supra) and S.N. Vijayalakshmi (supra) for exercise of jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings. Interference by this Court is therefore warranted to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law. 23. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice. The present case squarely warrants exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to secure the ends of justice and to prevent misuse of the criminal process. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to succeed and is, hereby, allowed. 13 24. Consequently, the First Information Report bearing Crime No.196/2021 registered at Police Station Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), the order/memo dated 18.02.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. directing registration of the FIR, the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto for the offences under Sections 385, 451, 506 and 34 of the IPC, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, including Criminal Case No.388/2022 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, are hereby quashed and set aside. 25. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu