1 CGHC010260572024 2026:CGHC:35536-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2177 of 2024 1 - Natwar Lal Agrawal S/o. Satyanarayan Agrawal Aged About 65 Years R/o. Village Bhoghapara, Shhivrinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o. Village Gidhori, Police Station Gidhori, Tehsil Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Satayanarayan Agrawal Aged About 56 Years R/o. Village Bhoghapara, Shhivrinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o. Village Gidhori, Police Station Gidhori, Tehsil Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ravindra Rao Jadhav S/o Late Shankar Lal Jadhav Aged About 65 Years R/o. Village Bhoghapara, Shhivrinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o. Village Nargoda, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ........... Respondent/complainant ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.20 11:36:17 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Arpan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1, Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer : “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant 528 petition filed by the petitioner and the entire criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 452/2021, arising out of Crime No. 116/2021, registered at Police Station Shivrinarayan, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh v. Ravindra Rao Bhosle & 3 Others, may kindly be quashed, so far it relates to the petitioner herein is concerned and the entire charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet filed in Crime No. 116/2021 may also kindly be quashed, so far it relates to the petitioner is concerned, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 3 116/2021 registered at Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa and Criminal Case No. 452/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh. The prosecution case is that respondent No.2/complainant, Ravindra Rao Jadhav, claimed ownership over certain land situated at Shivrinarayan and alleged that co-accused Ravindra Rao Bhosle and Harishankar Rao Bhosle, on the basis of a purported power of attorney, executed a sale deed dated 09.05.2006 in favour of the present petitioners, thereby committing cheating. The petitioners contend that they are bona fide purchasers who purchased the property through a registered sale deed after due verification of the revenue records and power of attorney, and their names were thereafter mutated in the revenue records. It is further contended that the complainant was aware of the transaction since 2006, but the FIR was lodged only on 16.03.2021, after an unexplained delay of nearly fifteen years. The petitioners also rely upon the civil proceedings concerning the same property and submit that the dispute is essentially civil in nature; though subsequently, in Civil Suit No. 29A/2021, the sale deed dated 09.05.2006 was declared void by judgment dated 12.03.2024, the said judgment is under challenge in appeal. According to the petitioners, no specific role or dishonest intention has been attributed to them and they have been unnecessarily implicated in a dispute relating to title and validity of the sale transaction. It is, therefore, submitted that the criminal proceedings are a misuse of the process of law and deserve to be quashed. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners would 4 submit that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence is made out against the petitioners, as no specific allegation, overt act, dishonest intention, conspiracy or fraudulent conduct has been attributed to them. The petitioners are bona fide purchasers who purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 09.05.2006 after paying the entire sale consideration and after due verification of the relevant revenue records and the power of attorney. It is submitted that the principal allegations are against the co-accused who allegedly executed the transaction and the petitioners cannot be prosecuted merely for any alleged misdeed of the vendor in the absence of material showing their knowledge or active involvement. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, relating to title over the property and validity of the sale deed, and the complainant has already instituted Civil Suit No. 29A/2021 on the same set of allegations, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12.03.2024, against which Civil Appeal No. 23A/2024 is pending consideration before the learned District Judge, Janjgir-Champa. He would submit that where the allegations, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not disclose an offence and the dispute is essentially civil in nature, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 5. He would further submit that the alleged transaction took place on 09.05.2006, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 16.03.2021, after an unexplained delay of nearly fifteen years, despite the complainant 5 having knowledge of the sale transaction, which seriously affects the bona fides of the prosecution. According to him, the criminal proceedings have been initiated only to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute and to exert pressure upon the petitioners, thereby amounting to abuse of the process of law. He would submit that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners and, on the contrary, if the allegations are accepted on their face value, the petitioners themselves appear to be the persons who were deceived in the transaction. He would further submit that a bona fide purchaser, who has paid the entire consideration and purchased the property after due verification, cannot be prosecuted for the alleged acts of the vendor in the absence of material showing any conspiracy, knowledge or active participation on his part. It is, therefore, prayed that the FIR, charge- sheet and consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 116/2021 and Criminal Case No. 452/2021 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/State would oppose the petition and submit that the petitioners have failed to make out any exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as they seek adjudication of disputed questions of fact and rely upon documents which are neither admitted nor incontrovertible. It is contended that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences punishable under 6 Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC and that, during investigation, several documents were seized which reveal discrepancies and prima facie indicate creation of forged documents and fraudulent execution of the sale deed in respect of the disputed property; the statement of the complainant recorded during investigation also supports the allegations made in the FIR. Learned counsel would submit that sufficient material has been collected during investigation implicating the petitioners and, therefore, the allegations cannot be said to be vague or inherently improbable. It is further submitted that the plea of the petitioners that they are bona fide purchasers and their reliance upon the documents produced by them constitute matters of defence, requiring appreciation of evidence, which can appropriately be considered by the learned trial Court and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations are grave and serious and disclose the alleged involvement of the accused persons in a conspiracy to fraudulently create documents and execute the sale deed, and that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, while a supplementary charge-sheet is proposed after examination of the disputed documents. It is submitted that at this stage this Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or examine the reliability, genuineness or evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation. Since the present case does not fall within any of the recognised categories warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, the petition is misconceived, devoid of 7 merit and liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would oppose the petition and submit that the petitioners are not bona fide purchasers, but are in collusion with the co-accused Ravindra Rao Bhosle and Harishankar Rao Bhosle. It is contended that the petitioners themselves pleaded before the Civil Court that respondent No.2 had personally approached them for sale of the disputed land, whereas the photograph affixed on the alleged power of attorney is of a different person and the address mentioned therein pertains to another district. Despite having examined the power of attorney and other documents, the petitioners proceeded with the transaction and got the sale deed dated 09.05.2006 executed in their favour. According to learned counsel, these circumstances prima facie demonstrate that the petitioners were aware of the discrepancies in the power of attorney and nevertheless proceeded with the purchase of the land belonging to respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioners, despite claiming to be bona fide purchasers, neither lodged any complaint against the alleged attorney holder or the other co-accused for cheating or fraud nor initiated any proceedings for recovery of the sale consideration, which creates serious doubt regarding their bona fides. 8. He would further submit that respondent No.2 never received any sale consideration from the petitioners and that the alleged power of attorney and subsequent sale deed were fraudulently created and executed. It is contended that, if the matter is permitted to proceed to trial and the witnesses are examined, the involvement and alleged 8 collusion of the petitioners with the co-accused may come to light, particularly as the circumstances surrounding the execution of the power of attorney and sale deed require appreciation of evidence. He would submit that the disputed questions regarding the identity of the person shown in the power of attorney, the knowledge of the petitioners, their alleged collusion and the circumstances in which the sale deed was executed cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations and material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences and the case does not fall within the circumstances warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the criminal proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 10. The petitioners seek quashing of the criminal proceedings primarily on the ground that they are bona fide purchasers, that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as respondent No.2 have opposed the petition, submitting that the investigation has brought on record material indicating discrepancies in the alleged power of attorney and the sale transaction and that the petitioners' alleged knowledge and involvement in the transaction require appreciation of evidence. 9 11. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “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 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 10 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). (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; 11 (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;”” 12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), while reiterating the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, has once again emphasized that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised with great caution, circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances. 13. The Apex Court has held that while considering a prayer for quashing of an FIR, charge-sheet or criminal proceedings, the Court is 12 not expected to conduct a mini trial or undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence collected during investigation. The scope of judicial scrutiny at such stage is confined to examining whether the allegations made in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and make out a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS), cannot enter into disputed questions of fact, evaluate the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, assess the evidentiary value of witness statements, or adjudicate upon the probable defence available to the accused. Such an exercise falls squarely within the province of the trial Court, which alone is competent to appreciate evidence after the parties have led their respective cases. The Apex Court cautioned that where the allegations disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and the investigating agency has collected material in support thereof, criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold merely because the accused has raised a plausible defence or disputes the correctness of the prosecution case. 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 13 Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (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, 14 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)]” 15. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the main contention of the petitioners is that they are bona fide purchasers and that the dispute essentially relates to the title and validity of the sale deed dated 09.05.2006, which has already been adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. However, the said contention cannot be accepted at this stage so as to quash the criminal proceedings. The allegations in the FIR, read with the material collected during investigation, prima facie indicate that the disputed property was dealt with on the basis of a purported power of attorney, the genuineness and validity of which are seriously disputed by respondent No.2. The prosecution has also collected documents during investigation which, according to the State, disclose discrepancies in the documents forming the basis of the transaction. The specific allegation of respondent No.2 is that the petitioners, despite being aware of such discrepancies, proceeded with the transaction. Whether the petitioners had knowledge of the alleged fraudulent documents, whether they acted in collusion with the co- accused and whether they were bona fide purchasers are matters which 15 necessarily require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Such disputed questions cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 16. The contention that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature also does not, by itself, furnish a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is true that civil proceedings concerning the same property were instituted and the sale deed dated 09.05.2006 was declared void by the judgment dated 12.03.2024, against which an appeal is stated to be pending; however, the existence of a civil dispute does not preclude criminal prosecution if the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients of a criminal offence. In the present case, the prosecution case is not confined merely to a dispute regarding title, but alleges fraudulent use of a purported power of attorney and execution of the sale deed on the basis thereof. Therefore, the question whether the acts alleged constitute the offences in question and whether the petitioners were knowingly involved therein has to be determined on the basis of evidence led before the learned trial Court. 17. The reliance placed by the petitioners upon the delay in lodging the FIR also does not persuade us to exercise our inherent jurisdiction. The alleged transaction took place on 09.05.2006, whereas the FIR was registered on 16.03.2021. However, the effect of such delay, the explanation therefor and its bearing upon the credibility of the prosecution case are matters which can be appropriately considered by the learned trial Court after the parties have led evidence. At the stage 16 of quashing, this Court cannot undertake an assessment of the credibility of the complainant or determine whether the delay renders the prosecution version unacceptable. Similarly, the plea that the petitioners had verified the revenue records and the power of attorney before purchasing the property and had paid the entire consideration is essentially a defence of the petitioners, the evidentiary value of which cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings. 18. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or devoid of substance that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The case does not fall within any of the illustrative categories warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and the prosecution has placed material which requires examination at trial. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot conduct a mini-trial, evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents, or adjudicate upon the defence of the petitioners. 19. Consequently, we find no ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.116/2021, registered at Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa and Criminal Case No.452/2021 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 17 Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa. The present petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 20. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the consideration of the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and in accordance with law. 21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok