1 CGHC010311722026 2026:CGHC:36224-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2112 of 2026 1 - Birendra Mishra S/o Late Lallan Mishra, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Ward No. - 11, Village - Ghatula, PS - Sihava, Tehsil - Nagri, District - Dhamtari, C.G. (Accused Person) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer, Police Station - Khamtarai, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shrimati Sangeeta Mishra @ Shrimati Sangeeta Tiwari, W/o S.K. Mishra, D/o Late Shivmangal Tiwari, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Nandichowk, Sabzi Market, Tikrapara, Tehsil and District - Raipur C.G. Respondent No. 2 and 3, Through Power of Attorney Holder Santosh Kumar Mishra, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Late R. B. Mishra, R/o Nandichowk, Sabzi Market, Tikrapara, Tehsil and District Raipur, C.G. (Respondent No. 2 and 3 are Complainant) 3 - Shrimati Ranjeeta Pandey, W/o Santosh Pandey, D/o Late Shivmangal Tiwari, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Police Line, Kanker, District - North Baster, Kanker, C.G. Respondent No. 2 and 3, Through Power of Attorney Holder Santosh Kumar Mishra, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Late R. B. Mishra, R/o Nandichowk, Sabzi Market, Tikrapara, Tehsil and District Raipur, C.G. (Respondent No. 2 and 3 are Complainant) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.08.18 18:20:10 +0530 2 For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. Raman Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.08.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing FIR and Crime No.- 1036/2025 dated 14/9/25, registered at PS- Khamtarai, Raipur, District- Raipur against the present petitioner for offence u/s 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be quash the impugned order dated 18/8/25 whereby the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur, CG has allowed the application of the complainant under Section 156 (3) of CrPC and directed for registration of FIR against the petitioner and other co-accused person in the interest of justice. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts as mentioned in the petition are that, one FIR/Crime No. 3 1036/2025 has been registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. The FIR was registered pursuant to an order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on an application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed by the complainants, who are daughters of Late Shivmangal Tiwari and Late Usha Kiran Tiwari. The complainants alleged that, after the death of Usha Kiran Tiwari, the co-accused Aman Tiwari relied upon a purportedly forged Will dated 16.07.2021 allegedly executed by Shivmangal Tiwari and Usha Kiran Tiwari in his favour and sought mutation of the properties by claiming himself to be the sole heir and by filing allegedly false and fabricated affidavits. The Magistrate directed registration of the FIR primarily on the basis of a handwriting expert's report opining that the signatures of the deceased persons on the Will were fabricated. The petitioner, however, asserts that the deceased Shivmangal Tiwari and Usha Kiran Tiwari jointly owned several properties and had, during their lifetime, executed the Will dated 16.07.2021 in favour of their grandson Aman Tiwari out of love and affection, particularly as their only son, Late Yogesh Tiwari, had predeceased them. The petitioner further states that the dispute concerning the properties has already been the subject matter of various mutation and revenue proceedings, demonstrating that the controversy essentially concerns title, succession and validity 4 of the Will and is civil in nature. Several revenue proceedings concerning the disputed properties have been initiated and adjudicated at different stages. In respect of properties situated at Raipur, mutation proceedings resulted in orders either mutating the names of the legal heirs or recalling earlier mutation orders for fresh consideration, while proceedings concerning the property situated at Nagri, District Dhamtari, involved a dispute regarding the effect of the Will, with the High Court having restrained mutation proceedings and the revenue authorities subsequently recording the names of the legal heirs and expressing doubt regarding the Will. Appeals arising from these proceedings have also been pursued before the competent revenue authorities. The petitioner and other co-accused persons have separately challenged the order directing registration of the FIR and sought quashing thereof in CRMP No. 83/2026, wherein the High Court, by order dated 12.01.2026, stayed their arrest and the matter remains pending. The petitioner further alleges that, on 09.07.2026, the police took him for interrogation and obtained his signatures on certain documents under pressure, following which he became aware of the pending criminal proceedings and apprehended arrest. According to the petitioner, the criminal case has been initiated at the instance of the complainants as an arm- twisting measure to harass him in relation to the underlying property and succession dispute and amounts to an abuse of the process of law; accordingly, he seeks quashing of the impugned 5 FIR as well as the order dated 18.08.2025. 3. The petitioner submits that the dispute is essentially a family and property dispute concerning the properties of Late Shivmangal Tiwari and Late Usha Kiran Tiwari, with several civil and revenue proceedings already pending or decided between the parties. The FIR has allegedly been lodged as an arm-twisting measure to challenge the Will dated 16.07.2021. The petitioner contends that he was merely an attesting witness to the duly notarized Will and had no role in its preparation, fabrication or execution beyond witnessing the signatures and presence of the testators. He neither benefited from the Will nor is his own signature alleged to be forged. Therefore, mere attestation does not establish his involvement in the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the dispute regarding the validity of the Will is essentially civil in nature and cannot be converted into a criminal proceeding in the absence of specific allegations and material showing the petitioner's dishonest intention or participation in any forgery or cheating. The handwriting expert's opinion is not conclusive and the validity of the Will is yet to be determined in the appropriate civil proceedings. Since the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner and his implication is unsupported by substantive evidence, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of the FIR and the order dated 18.08.2025 insofar as it concerns him. 6 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submit that the FIR has been registered pursuant to the order passed by the competent Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, on the basis of allegations supported by a handwriting expert's opinion indicating fabrication of the signatures appearing on the disputed Will. The allegations disclose cognizable offences and require proper investigation, and the petitioner’s role as an attesting witness to the disputed Will cannot, at this stage, be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings for quashing the FIR. The questions regarding genuineness and validity of the Will, the petitioner’s knowledge and involvement, and the respective roles of the accused are matters requiring investigation and appreciation of evidence. The pendency of civil or revenue proceedings concerning the property does not, by itself, bar criminal proceedings where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps 7 to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). 8 v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 7. In the case of 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 observed that:- “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- 9 (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted prosecution/complainant; and/or the material that justifiably refuted it cannot be by is by the such, the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]” 8. In the present case, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR/Crime No.1036/2025 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District 10 Raipur, for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, as well as the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, allowing the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and directing registration of the FIR. The FIR has been lodged pursuant to the order passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The allegations relate to a disputed Will dated 16.07.2021 concerning the properties of Late Shivmangal Tiwari and Late Usha Kiran Tiwari, with the complainants alleging fabrication of their signatures, allegedly supported by a handwriting expert's opinion. The allegations, the order passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the handwriting expert's opinion prima facie disclose cognizable offences requiring investigation. The petitioner's defence that he was merely an attesting witness and that the dispute is civil in nature involves disputed questions of fact relating to the genuineness of the Will, his knowledge and involvement, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. 9. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court cannot undertake a detailed examination of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations or weigh the evidentiary value of the material collected or relied upon by the prosecution. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), no ground for interference is made 11 out. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). 10. The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh shall submit his affidavit again informing this Court as to what action has been taken against the erring officer who has kept the matter pending for such a long time and the final report has not been submitted though the FIR was lodged on 14.09.2025 and the matter be placed before us in chamber within 10 days. 11. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh for necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil