1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 999 of 2026 1 - Akhilesh Kumar Soni S/o Shri Dorilal Soni Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Umreli, P.S. Urga, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, P.S. Urga, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Basant Kumar Soni S/o Hutash Prasad Soni Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Umreli, P.S. Urga, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shantilal Mannewar S/o Maharuram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Umreli, P.S. Urga, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Adv. For State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastav, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 13 / 04 / 2026 Heard. 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS against the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 passed by the learned revisional Court of 2nd Additional Sessions HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.04.13 18:21:57 +0530 2 Judge, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Case No. 46/2025 dismissing the revision case by upholding the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba in unregistered complaint case (Akhilesh Kumar Soni vs. Basant Kumar Soni & Ors.) wherein the application under Section 223 of BNSS filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The material facts, in brief, are to the effect that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 223 of the BNSS against Basant Kumar Soni, Shantilal Manewar, and 40 to 50 other unknown persons on 3.12.2024. Upon considering the preliminary evidence and the police report, the Trial Court, JMFC, Korba dismissed the complaint on 18.11.2025, on the ground that the dispute between the two parties was of a civil nature and, therefore, the initiation of criminal proceedings was deemed inappropriate and rejected the application filed by the petitioner. This order was challenged in Criminal Revision Petition No. 46/2025 before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, which was subsequently rejected by upholding the order of the Trial Court dated 18.11.2025. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 as well as the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 are per se bad in law and unsustainable because the learned trial Court failed to follow the law laid down in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., as the facts clearly disclosed a cognizable offense under Sections 303, 310 and 351 of the BNS, therefore, required a proper investigation conducted by the concerned police authorities. The learned trial Court ignored the sworn 3 testimonies of the petitioner and independent witnesses who confirmed the identity of the accused and the commission of the crime. The respondents/accused committed the act in blatant violation of a permanent injunction decree dated 06.07.2024, which the trial Court failed to appreciate as evidence of criminal intent and motive. The trial Court erred in not directing the police to register an FIR and conduct a proper investigation, especially since local police were allegedly inactive. The trial Court erred in holding that the dispute is civil in nature. While land title may be civil, the act of entering land with an armed mob to steal crops constitutes criminal trespass and robbery under the BNS. As such, the petition is liable to be allowed, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition and the impugned order. 6. A perusal of the entire case record, coupled with the information provided by the petitioner himself, reveals that both parties are in relation to each other. The petitioner's father, Dorilal Soni, was involved in a dispute with his elder brother, Ishwar Prasad Soni, and his son, Govind Prasad Soni, regarding land situated in Village Umreli bearing Khasra Nos. 991, 993, 452, and 151. The private respondent party had filed a suit before the Civil Judge, which resulted in a decree in their favour. Upon being challenged, the complainant's appeal was allowed by the 4 District Judge, and an order was passed in his favour. A Second Appeal was filed before this Court against that order, wherein an order maintaining the status quo was issued, and the respondent party has violated that order of this Court. 7. Looking to the documents annexed with the petition, it is evident that no family tree has been submitted in this matter, no copy of a civil decree has been produced, nor has a copy of the order regarding the status quo granted by this Court been submitted. On the basis of the records available in the matter, it clearly appears that the dispute is a civil nature. Under these circumstances, no illegality or irregularity is found in the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court; therefore, no interference is required in the order impugned. 8. Accordingly, in view of the above, the petition is dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu