1 CGHC010297992026 2026:CGHC:34425-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2071 of 2026 1 - Chandrika Prasad Dewangan S/o Late Tikauram Dewangan Aged About 65 Years R/o B-15, Amrapali Society, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Purushottam Dewangan S/o Late Tikauram Dewangan Aged About 54 Years R/o H.No. 1195 Pahadi Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jitendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Chandrika Prasad Dewangan Aged About 36 Years Amrapali Society, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajat Dewangan S/o Purushottam Dewangan Aged About 25 Years R/o Ekta Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Nirmala Dewangan W/o Santosh Kumar Dewangan R/o The Park Side, Rishabh Builders, Kachna, Police Station Khamhardih, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate. For State : Shri Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 06.08.2026 INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.06 15:50:10 +0530 2 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “I) Quash the impugned First Information Report bearing Crime No. 278/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur. ii) Quash the charge-sheet/final report bearing No. 161/2025 dated 22.03.2025 arising out of Crime No. 278/2023 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. iii) Quash the order of taking cognizance dated 29.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case arising out of Crime No. 278/2023 pursuant to Charge-sheet No. 161/2025, along with all consequential proceedings. iv) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2 Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the sons and grandsons of late Shri Tikauram Dewangan. Tikauram Dewangan died on 19.02.20216. The respondent No.2/complainant is the daughter of Tikauram Dewangan. She made a complaint that on the basis of forged will date dated 07.10.2013 alleged to be executed by her father late Tikauram in favour of present petitioners, they moved their application for mutation and got their names mutated in the revenue records. Based on said complaint an FIR being Crime No. 278/2023 came to be registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code alleging commission of offences relating to cheating and forgery. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed Charge-sheet on 3 22.03.2025 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the trial court took cognizance of aforesaid offences and registered criminal case against the petitioners. Aggrieved by registration of FIR, filing of the charge- sheet and order taking cognizance, the petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking quashing of FIR and all all consequential criminal proceedings. 3 Leaned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Tikauram Dewangan was survived by three sons and four daughters. Will deed dated 07.10.2013 was executed by Tikauram in favour of his sons/ grandsons and on the basis of said Will Deed they moved mutation application and got their name mutated in the revenue records and as such they have not committed any forgery. It is contended that the petitioners merely sought mutation of their names on the strength of said Will and have not committed any act of forgery. Further, the genuineness and validity of the Will is already subject matter in a pending civil suit before the competent Civil Court and therefore continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is not warranted. Thus, the FIR, Charge Sheet and order taking cognizance against the present petitioners may be set aside. 4 We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that after filing of the charge-sheet and order taking cognizance, the criminal case is pending before the trial Court at the stage of consideration of charge. The record further reveals that 4 since April, 2025, the petitioners have been avoiding arguments on the question of framing of charge and proceeding is not progressed. The grounds urged before this Court, i.e. the genuineness of Will, absence of forgery and the pendency of a civil suit regarding validity of the Will, are all matters which can appropriately be urged before the trial Court by filing an application for discharge. The trial Court is competent to consider the material collected during investigation and determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the petitioners. 6 Instead of availing the statutory remedy of seeking discharge and raising all permissible pleas before the trial Court, the petitioners have chosen to directly invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court challenging charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance. The conduct of the petitioners in avoiding framing charge since April, 2025 and simultaneously approaching this Court cannot be appreciated. Entertaining the present petition at this stage would only result in delaying the trial and circumventing the procedure prescribed under the law. Thus, no exceptional circumstance has been made out warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds available to them before the trial Court by filing appropriate application for discharge. 7 Accordingly, considering the conduct of the petitioners in avoiding the stage of framing of charge since April, 2025 and in directly approaching this Court without first availing the remedy of discharge before the trial Court, the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed on this ground alone. It is, however, observed that if the 5 petitioners file an application for discharge before the trial Court, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder