1 CGHC010199302025 2026:CGHC:37326-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1732 of 2025 Dhananjay Singh S/o Late M.N. Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o Mana Camp, Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Department, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Sant Singh Kohli S/o Late Gurucharan Singh Kohli Aged About 61 Years R/o Gurunanak Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anush Naik, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.20 14:25:46 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anush Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent / State as well as Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer: “1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR bearing No. 264/2024 registered on dated 28.05.2024 at police station Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh filed under section 294, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 of Arms Act, in the interest of justice. 3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash charge sheet filed on 11.09.2024 and entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 15253/2024 (parties being State Vs. Dhananjay Singh) pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur Chhattisgarh in commission of offence under section 294, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 25 of Arms Act against the petitioner in the interest of justice. 4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.05.2024 at about 9:30 p.m., a dispute arose between the complainant and the accused persons in relation to fencing of a plot, during which the accused persons allegedly abused the complainant in filthy language, assaulted the injured person, threatened to kill him and caused damage to the property. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by the complainant, FIR was registered at the concerned Police Station against the appellant/accused for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, where the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 15253/2024 and the trial is stated to be pending. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case arising out of a dispute concerning demarcation and possession of land. It is submitted that at the relevant time the petitioner was present along with the Revenue Inspector and Patwari for carrying out lawful 4 demarcation of his plot pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and it was the complainant who allegedly interfered with the demarcation proceedings and precipitated the dispute. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations under Sections 294, 506 and 427 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act are false and do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The alleged weapon was not in the possession of the petitioner and, according to the petitioner, the seizure itself is rendered doubtful in view of the subsequent revenue proceedings, including the eviction order dated 13.09.2024. It is also submitted that the dispute is essentially civil/revenue in nature and has arisen in connection with competing claims over the land. The petitioner is a reputed person and a teacher by profession and has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further points out that this Court had already granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 20.08.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.A. No. 934/2024. It is, therefore, contended that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law, as no prima facie case is made out against him and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner. It is contended that the disputed questions 5 relating to ownership, possession and demarcation of the land are matters of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Learned State counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the matter is pending before the competent Court, where the petitioner would have adequate opportunity to establish his defence. It is, therefore, submitted that no ground is made out for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5/complainant opposes the petition and submits that the FIR dated 28.05.2024, charge-sheet dated 11.09.2024 and the consequential criminal proceedings have been challenged by the petitioner by suppressing material facts. It is submitted that on 28.05.2024, upon being informed that the fencing and boundary wire of the complainant’s plot situated at Gram Dharampura had been damaged, the complainant reached the spot and found the petitioner along with his son, Revenue Inspector, Patwari and others present there. It is contended that upon seeing the complainant, the petitioner started quarrelling with him and threatened to kill him by using weapons including a sword, baseball bat, hammer and axe, which were kept near the wall. The complainant, being a senior citizen, thereafter approached the police and lodged the complaint. Learned counsel further submits that the weapons allegedly used for threatening the 6 complainant were seized from the petitioner during investigation and the statements of the Revenue Inspector and Patwari also support the prosecution version. It is further submitted that the dispute regarding the land and demarcation is a matter of defence and cannot be examined in the present proceedings, particularly when the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and the criminal case is pending before the competent Court. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that no case for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet or consequential criminal proceedings is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the principles governing exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of an FIR and criminal proceedings. It has been held that such jurisdiction may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Amongst the illustrative categories recognised by the Supreme Court is a case where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance upon the accused. 9. The Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. 7 State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1, while considering the principles laid down in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, held that although the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised with caution, care and circumspection, the High Court may exercise such jurisdiction where the material produced by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality and is such as would rule out and displace the factual assertions contained in the prosecution case. The Court further delineated the factors to be considered, namely, whether the material relied upon is sound, reasonable and indubitable, whether it effectively displaces the allegations made against the accused, whether such material has remained unrefuted or cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution, and whether continuation of the proceedings would result in abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice. Where these requirements are satisfied, the High Court would be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. 10. The Supreme Court in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2023 INSC 687, has further observed that where an accused approaches the Court alleging that the criminal proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the Court is required to examine the FIR with care and a little more closely. It has been held that in such circumstances, the Court is not required to 8 restrict its consideration merely to the averments contained in the FIR but may also examine the attending circumstances emerging from the record which led to the initiation and registration of the criminal proceedings, as well as the material collected during investigation, with due care and circumspection. 11. The Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, has reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a weapon of harassment and that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court may be exercised where continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law or otherwise result in failure of justice. Thus, while the power of quashing is undoubtedly to be exercised sparingly and with caution, the same cannot be withheld in a case where the material on record, considered in its entirety, demonstrates that the criminal process has been set in motion for an ulterior purpose and its continuation would cause manifest injustice. 12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is apparent from the material placed on record that the dispute between the parties essentially relates to the ownership, possession, fencing and demarcation of the disputed land. The petitioner has placed on record the relevant revenue proceedings, including the proceedings for demarcation and the eviction order dated 13.09.2024. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that he 9 was present at the spot along with the Revenue Inspector and Patwari in connection with the demarcation proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities. Thus, the presence of the petitioner at the spot has a background arising out of the pending revenue dispute between the parties. 13. The complainant, on the other hand, has alleged that the petitioner damaged the fencing and threatened him with weapons. The weapons are stated to have been seized during investigation and the statements of the Revenue Inspector and Patwari have also been relied upon by the prosecution. However, these allegations have to be examined in the backdrop of the admitted circumstance that there was an existing dispute between the parties with regard to the disputed property and that demarcation proceedings were being undertaken by the revenue authorities. The documents placed on record by the petitioner, particularly the revenue proceedings, constitute relevant attending circumstances for considering the manner in which the criminal proceedings came to be initiated. 14. It is well settled that merely because a dispute has a civil or revenue character, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed if the allegations otherwise disclose the commission of a criminal offence. However, in the present case, on consideration of the allegations in the FIR along with the surrounding circumstances and the documents placed on record, we find that the criminal 10 proceedings have arisen directly out of the property dispute between the parties. The material on record does not warrant continuation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner when the foundational dispute between the parties is admittedly with regard to the disputed land and its demarcation. 15. We also take note of the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court for anticipatory bail and this Court, vide order dated 20.08.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.A. No.934/2024, had granted him anticipatory bail. The said circumstance, though by itself is not determinative of the present petition, is relevant while considering the overall circumstances in which the petitioner has been prosecuted. The petitioner has also placed on record the revenue proceedings to demonstrate that his presence at the spot was in connection with a lawful demarcation proceeding and not for any criminal purpose. 16. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the admitted background of the property dispute, the revenue proceedings placed on record and the overall circumstances leading to registration of the FIR, we are of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. The present case falls within the principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as explained by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) and the subsequent 11 decisions referred to hereinabove. 17. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR dated 28.05.2024 bearing Crime No.264/2024 registered at Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, the charge-sheet dated 11.09.2024 and the consequential criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.15253/2024 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, insofar as they relate to the present petitioner, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet