1 CGHC010002282026 2026:CGHC:36224-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 83 of 2026 1 - Aman Tiwari S/o Late Yogesh Tiwari, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village - Ghatula, P.S.- Sihava, Tehsil- Nagri, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Komal Sahu S/o Lalaram Sahu, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village- Ghatula, P.S.- Sihava, Tehsil- Nagari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer, Police Station- Khamtarai, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 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, Chhattisgarh, 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, Chhattisgarh 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, Chhattisgarh, 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, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.08.19 10:59:46 +0530 2 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 below has allowed the application of the complainant under Section 156 (3) of CrPC and directed for registration of FIR against the petitioners 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 petitioners in the interest of justice.” 3 2. As per the facts mentioned in the petition, the present petitioners are accused in FIR/Crime No. 1036/2025 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. The FIR came to be registered pursuant to an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC filed by the complainants, who are daughters of Late Shivmangal Tiwari and Late Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari. The complainants alleged that, after the death of Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari, Petitioner No. 1, Aman Tiwari, sought mutation of his name on the basis of an alleged forged Will dated 16.07.2021 executed by Late Shivmangal Tiwari and Late Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari in his favour, and that false and fabricated affidavits were also filed in the mutation proceedings. On the said application, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, vide order dated 18.08.2025, directed registration of FIR, principally relying upon a handwriting expert's opinion alleging that the signatures of Late Shivmangal Tiwari and Late Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari on the Will were fabricated. Consequently, FIR No. 1036/2025 dated 16.09.2025 was registered against the petitioners and co-accused Virendra Mishra. The petitioners submit that the allegations arise out of a long-standing dispute concerning the title and mutation of the properties left by Late Shivmangal Tiwari and Late Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari. The deceased jointly owned properties situated at Village Ghatula (Sihava), Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari and Village Gondwara, Raipur. During their lifetime, both executed a 4 Will dated 16.07.2021 in favour of Petitioner No. 1, their grandson, on account of the love and affection towards him, particularly as their only son, Late Yogesh Tiwari, had predeceased them on 11.10.2009. Thus, the Will is the foundation of the petitioner's claim over the disputed properties and is also the subject matter of the pending revenue proceedings. It is further case of the petitioner that, the subsequent events demonstrate that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil/revenue in nature and has already been the subject matter of various mutation, review and appellate proceedings. In respect of the property situated at Gondwara, Petitioner No. 1 had applied for mutation, pursuant to which his name, along with the names of his mother and sister, was initially mutated vide order dated 22.12.2023; however, the said order was subsequently reviewed and recalled by the Tehsildar vide order dated 21.02.2024, and the mutation proceedings are presently pending. In respect of other properties at Gondwara, the names of the legal heirs, including the complainants, have also been directed to be mutated vide orders dated 30.02.2024 and 20.05.2025. With regard to the property situated at Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, the complainants initiated mutation proceedings after the death of Late Shivmangal Tiwari, wherein Petitioner No. 1 asserted his claim on the basis of the Will. The said proceedings were also challenged before this Hon'ble Court, which vide order dated 07.11.2024 passed in WPC No. 5520/2024 restrained the Tehsildar from mutating the name of 5 the concerned respondent; nevertheless, the Tehsildar subsequently passed an order dated 29.01.2025 directing mutation of the names of all legal heirs and observing that the Will appeared suspicious. The petitioner's appeal against the said order was dismissed by the SDO (Revenue), Nagri, vide order dated 28.11.2025, against which further appellate remedy is intended to be pursued. The petitioners submit that the existence of these pending and concluded revenue proceedings clearly establishes that the parties are contesting their respective civil rights and title over the properties, and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated by the complainants as an arm- twisting measure to pressurise and harass the petitioners. The impugned FIR, therefore, amounts to an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute is essentially between family members concerning the properties of Late Shivmangal Tiwari and Late Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari, and several revenue proceedings regarding the same properties are already pending or have been decided between the parties. The FIR has therefore been lodged as an arm-twisting measure to pressurise the petitioners to surrender their legitimate claim. It is submitted that the Will dated 16.07.2021 was executed by the deceased in favour of Petitioner No. 1, their grandson, out of love and affection, particularly as their only son, Late Yogesh Tiwari, had predeceased them. The Will is duly notarised, and Late 6 Shivmangal Tiwari had also consented to the petitioner's mutation by filing an affidavit during his lifetime. The mere fact that Petitioner No. 2 was an attesting witness to the Will does not establish his involvement in any offence. The handwriting expert's opinion is not conclusive, and the genuineness and validity of the Will are matters requiring determination in appropriate civil/revenue proceedings. It is further submitted that the complainants have given a criminal colour to a dispute which is predominantly civil in nature. Instead of seeking appropriate civil relief against the Will, the complainants have invoked criminal proceedings to coerce the petitioners. The FIR does not disclose any dishonest intention from the inception or the essential ingredients of cheating, forgery, conspiracy or use of forged documents. There is also no substantive material demonstrating the petitioners' involvement in the alleged offences. Continuation of the criminal proceedings, in these circumstances, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 opposing the petition, submit that the allegations contained in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC and warrant a proper investigation. It is submitted that the FIR was registered pursuant to the order 7 passed by the learned Magistrate on the application under Section 156(3) CrPC and was supported by the material placed before the Court, including the handwriting expert's opinion regarding the disputed signatures on the Will. The defence raised by the petitioners regarding the genuineness and validity of the Will, their rights over the property, and the pending revenue proceedings involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegations of false implication and abuse of process are matters of defence and can be examined during investigation and, if necessary, at the appropriate stage of trial. At this stage, there is sufficient prima facie material warranting investigation, and therefore no ground is made out for quashing the FIR; accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 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 Hon’ble 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 to be adopted”, during the pendency of the 8 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). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark 9 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 has 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.:- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and 10 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 allegations in the FIR relate to the execution and use of the disputed Will dated 16.07.2021 and the alleged fabrication of the signatures of Late Shivmangal Tiwari and Late Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari, along with the alleged use of 11 false documents in the mutation proceedings. The material placed on record, including the handwriting expert's opinion, prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, warrants investigation. The defence of the petitioners regarding the genuineness of the Will, the circumstances of its execution, the validity of the signatures, the affidavit filed in the mutation proceedings and the respective rights of the parties over the disputed properties involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in exercise of the limited jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The pendency of revenue proceedings concerning the properties, by itself, does not bar criminal proceedings where the allegations prima facie disclose independent criminality. 9. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and reiterated in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), while considering a petition for quashing, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or assess the correctness of the defence, but is only to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose a cognizable offence. In the present case, the FIR has been registered registered pursuant to an order passed by the learned Magistrate on the complainants’ application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., wherein the allegations of fabrication of the Will and use of forged documents were supported by a handwriting 12 expert's opinion. The genuineness of the Will, validity of the signatures and the defence raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact requiring investigation. 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. The contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the handwriting expert's opinion, the validity of the Will and absence of dishonest intention are matters which require appropriate consideration during investigation and, if necessary, at the stage of trial. The petitioners have failed to place such unimpeachable and sterling material on record which, at this stage, completely rules out the allegations contained in the FIR. Consequently, no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing the FIR or the order dated 18.08.2025 is made out. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). 10. The interim order dated 12.01.2026 stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil