1 CGHC010548542025 2026:CGHC:35562-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 45 of 2026 1. Nilesh Kumar Mane S/o Ram Rao Ji Mane Aged About 45 Years Residing In New State Bank Colony, Raut Layout, Post Nalwadi, Wardha, District Wardha (Maharashtra) 2. Ravikant Mane, S/o Ram Rao Ji Mane, Aged About 41 Years Residing In New State Bank Colony, Raut Layout, Post Nalwadi, Wardha, District Wardha (Maharashtra) 3. Smt. Sushila Mane, W/o. Ram Rao Ji Mane, Aged About 71 Years Residing In New State Bank Colony, Raut Layout, Post Nalwadi, Wardha, District Wardha (Maharashtra) ... Applicant(s) versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Civil Lines- District Raipur C.G. 2. Raju Umberkar S/o Late Gajanand Rao Umberkar, Aged About 60 Years R/o New Shanti Nagar, Gorkha Colony, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3. Shubham Umberkar S/o Raju Umberkar, Aged About 26 Years R/o New Shanti Nagar, Gorkha Colony, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate. For Non-applicants No. 2&3 : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.13 10:34:31 +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. Prateek Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/non-applicant No. 1 and Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, learned counsel, appearing for non-applicants No. 2 and 3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicants with the following prayers: “i. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned First Information Report (FIR) No. 0591 of 2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) dated 08.11.2025 for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in the interest of justice. ii. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in filing No.72842 of 2025 in application filed by the complainant under Section 175(3) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Raju Umberkar & Another vs. 3 Nilesh Kumar & Others) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur, directing the Police Station Civil Lines for registering the FIR against the applicants for offence under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS, in the interest of justice (C.G.)” 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Late Laxman Rao Janbaji Mane, brother-in-law of applicant No.3 Smt. Sushila Ramrao Mane and uncle of applicants No.1 and 2, was employed as Office Superintendent in the Irrigation Department, Raipur, and died on 24.10.2022. He was unmarried and had no children. During his lifetime, he had acquired the properties in question from his own earnings and was in possession and enjoyment thereof. It is submitted that, after the death of his parents and his younger brother Late Ram Rao Janbaji Mane, the applicants, being the widow of his younger brother and his nephews, were the persons claiming succession to his estate. He further submits that non-applicant No. 2 was working with the deceased in the Irrigation Department and was also residing near the deceased's house at New Shanti Nagar, Raipur. Taking advantage of his acquaintance and the advanced age and weak eyesight of the deceased, non-applicants No. 2 and 3 obtained a General Power of Attorney dated 31.05.2022 from him for management of the properties. According to the applicants, apart from the said power of attorney, the deceased had not executed any Will or other document transferring or bequeathing his properties in favour of the non-applicants. 4 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that after the death of Late Laxman Rao Janbaji Mane on 24.10.2022, the applicants performed his last rites and took possession of the house at New Shanti Nagar. Thereafter, the non-applicants allegedly broke open the lock and entered the premises and informed the applicants that the deceased had executed a Will dated 11.12.2021 in favour of non- applicant No. 3. The applicants dispute the genuineness of the said Will and submit that the signature appearing thereon is forged. The applicants state that they obtained the registered General Power of Attorney dated 31.05.2022 and compared the signatures appearing on the power of attorney and the disputed Will through a handwriting and fingerprint expert, who, according to the applicants, reported that the signatures on the disputed documents did not tally with the admitted signatures of the deceased. He further contended that the respondents thereafter caused mutation of the property in their favour on the basis of the disputed Will and subsequently sold the Geetanjali Nagar property to Wasim Akram Khan and Mohammad Hasnain by registered sale deed dated 19.02.2024 for a consideration of Rs.45,86,000/-. The applicants have already instituted Civil Suit No.466/2023 seeking declaration regarding the disputed Will, declaration of their rights in the estate of the deceased and permanent injunction, and the subsequent purchasers have also been impleaded in the said proceedings. 5. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants had also initiated criminal proceedings alleging forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, trespass and other offences against 5 the non-applicants. During the pendency of the civil proceedings, the applicants discovered another Will dated 28.04.2022, which, according to them, was executed by Late Laxman Rao Janbaji Mane in favour of applicants No. 1 to 3. The said Will has already been brought on record in the pending civil proceedings. An order of temporary injunction dated 13.02.2025 has also been passed in favour of the applicants, and proceedings alleging violation of the said injunction are pending. Learned counsel submits that, thereafter, non-applicant No. 2 initiated proceedings alleging that the Will dated 28.04.2022 relied upon by the applicants was forged. Without affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicants, the learned Magistrate passed the order dated 07.10.2025 directing registration of an FIR. Pursuant thereto, FIR dated 08.11.2025 came to be registered against the applicants for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS. It is submitted that the applicants had no prior knowledge of the said proceedings and came to know about the FIR only through a newspaper. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants lastly submits that the applicants had earlier approached this Hon'ble Court by filing CRMP No.3792/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition vide order dated 16.12.2025, and the cost imposed therein has already been deposited. In these circumstances, it is argued that the impugned proceedings arise out of an ongoing dispute concerning the genuineness and validity of rival Wills, which is already the subject matter of the pending civil proceedings, and that the criminal case has been initiated against the applicants during the pendency of the said 6 civil litigation. The applicants, therefore, seek interference of this Hon'ble Court with the impugned order and the consequential FIR in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that, as per the prosecution case, Late Laxman Rao Janbaji Mane, brother-in-law of applicant No. 3, Smt. Sushila Ramrao Mane, was employed as Office Superintendent in the Irrigation Department, Raipur, and died on 24.10.2022. He was unmarried and had no children. During his service, he acquired the properties situated at Geetanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar and New Shanti Nagar, Raipur, from his own earnings and remained in possession and enjoyment thereof during his lifetime. 8. It is submitted that, on the basis of the complaint and the documents placed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, the learned Magistrate found prima facie commission of cognizable offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS. The learned Magistrate also noticed discrepancies concerning the circumstances in which the questioned Will dated 28.04.2022 was allegedly discovered, including the conflicting versions regarding the presence of the concerned persons during Diwali and the alleged cleaning of the house. Considering these circumstances and the material produced along with the complaint, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 07.10.2025, allowed the application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS and directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, to register an FIR against the applicants. 7 9. Learned State counsel further submits that, pursuant to the said order and upon receipt of information disclosing cognizable offences, the impugned FIR was duly registered against the petitioners in accordance with law. At the stage of registration of an FIR, the requirement is only to ascertain whether the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations is a matter for investigation. Therefore, no illegality or infirmity can be attributed either to the registration of the FIR or to the order passed by the learned Magistrate. He also contended that It is further submitted that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The investigation has already culminated in filing of the charge-sheet before the competent jurisdictional Magistrate. In view thereof, and particularly when the allegations disclose cognizable offences and the matter has progressed beyond the stage of registration of the FIR, the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR does not call for interference and deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for non-applicants No. 2 and 3 submits that the applicants have already instituted Civil Suit No. 466A/2023 seeking declaration that the Will dated 11.12.2021 is forged and that the non- applicants have no right or title over the suit property on the basis thereof, along with the consequential relief of injunction. During the pendency of the said civil suit, the applicants filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC on 25.11.2024, claiming to have 8 discovered another Will dated 28.04.2022 in the suitcase of deceased Late Laxman Rao Janbaji Mane and seeking to bring the same on record. He further submitted that immediately upon coming to know about the said Will dated 28.04.2022, the non-applicants approached the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, along with relevant supporting documents, seeking registration of an FIR in respect of the alleged fabrication of the said Will. The learned Magistrate, after considering the material placed before it, found prima facie commission of cognizable offences and, vide order dated 07.10.2025, directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, to register an FIR against the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the non-applicants No. 2 and 3 would submit that the contention of the applicants that the order of the learned Magistrate was passed merely on the basis of allegations is misconceived. Along with the application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, the non-applicants had placed on record the opinion of a forensic expert regarding the disputed signature of Late Laxman Rao Janbaji Mane. On comparison of the signature appearing on the Will dated 28.04.2022 with the admitted signatures of the deceased appearing on his pension card and other relevant documents, the expert opined that the signatures materially differed. The expert opinion was also accompanied by the requisite certificate under Section 63 of the BNSS. Thus, the learned Magistrate had sufficient material before it to form a prima facie opinion regarding commission of cognizable offences. He further contended that the circumstances in which the 9 alleged Will dated 28.04.2022 surfaced are themselves highly suspicious. The applicants claim that they discovered the Will only after the death of Late Laxman Rao Janbaji Mane, while cleaning his house and finding it in his suitcase, despite the fact that the civil dispute regarding the earlier Will dated 11.12.2021 was already pending. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished as to why the deceased did not disclose the alleged Will during his lifetime or why no reliable contemporaneous material has been produced to establish its execution. These circumstances, coupled with the forensic opinion regarding the disputed signature, furnished sufficient basis for investigation by the police. 12. Learned counsel for non-applicants No. 2 and 3 further stated that the order dated 07.10.2025 is a reasoned order passed upon consideration of the material produced before the learned Magistrate and does not warrant interference at the stage of investigation. It is also pointed out that, during the pendency of the present petition, the police have already filed the charge-sheet in Crime No.591/2025. However, the applicants have confined their challenge to the registration of the FIR and the order passed by the learned Magistrate and have not challenged the subsequent charge-sheet or consequential criminal proceedings. On this ground also, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, learned counsel submits that the extraordinary power of quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and 10 with circumspection. At the stage of considering a prayer for quashing, the Court ought not to undertake an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations or the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that the present case does not fall within the exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 14. The undisputed position emerging from the record is that Late Laxman Rao Janbaji Mane, who was unmarried and had no children, died on 24.10.2022. During his lifetime, he had acquired the properties in question from his own earnings. The applicants claim succession to his estate and have instituted Civil Suit No. 466A/2023, wherein they have challenged the Will dated 11.12.2021 relied upon by the non- applicants. During the pendency of the said civil suit, the applicants brought on record another Will dated 28.04.2022, allegedly executed by the deceased in their favour. 15. The record further reveals that on coming to know about the said Will dated 28.04.2022, non-applicants No. 2 and 3 approached the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, by filing an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. Along with the said application, material including the opinion of a forensic expert regarding the disputed signature of Late Laxman Rao Janbaji Mane was placed 11 before the learned Magistrate. On consideration of the material available on record, the learned Magistrate noticed, inter alia, the circumstances in which the alleged Will dated 28.04.2022 surfaced and the discrepancies relating thereto and found prima facie commission of cognizable offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023. Accordingly, by order dated 07.10.2025, direction was issued to the concerned police station for registration of an FIR. 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 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 12 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 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 13 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 applicants is that the criminal proceedings have been initiated against them on account of the dispute concerning the genuineness of the Will dated 28.04.2022, which is already the subject matter of the pending civil proceedings. The applicants have also disputed the signature appearing on the said Will and relied upon the circumstances in which the document was allegedly discovered. These contentions, however, relate to the genuineness, execution and evidentiary value of the Will and involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 21. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The correctness or otherwise of the rival versions, including the applicants' plea that the Will dated 28.04.2022 is genuine and that they have been falsely implicated, requires appreciation of evidence and investigation and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 14 22. It is also relevant that the learned Magistrate did not pass the order dated 07.10.2025 merely on the basis of bald allegations. The material placed before the Court included the forensic opinion concerning the disputed signature and other documents relied upon by the complainants. The learned Magistrate, upon considering such material, formed a prima facie opinion regarding commission of cognizable offences. Whether the said expert opinion is ultimately correct or whether the disputed Will was genuinely executed by the deceased are matters to be tested during the course of investigation and trial. 23. It is further not in dispute that the investigation has already culminated in filing of the charge-sheet before the competent Court. The applicants have primarily challenged the registration of the FIR and the order dated 07.10.2025. Mere pendency of civil proceedings concerning the property or the validity of the rival Wills, by itself, does not render the criminal proceedings impermissible where the allegations disclose ingredients of cognizable offences. The civil and criminal proceedings may proceed in their respective fields, subject to the outcome thereof in accordance with law. 24. 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 15 (supra), warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations cannot, at this stage, be said to be so inherently improbable or patently absurd as to warrant quashing of the FIR at the threshold. Rather, the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which are required to be investigated in accordance with law. 25. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for quashing of the impugned FIR or the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, is made out. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 26. 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