1 2026:CGHC:8052 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1195 of 2019 Manoj Kumar Chaudhary S/o Shri Kharpattu Chaudhary Aged About 36 Years R/o Old Fish Market, Supela, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Magistrate, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jeevanlal Sahu S/o Keshav Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Kurud Basti, House No. 149, Near Sheetala Mandir, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anil Kumar Choubey S/o Late Lakhanlal Choubey Aged About 46 Years R/o Ekta Chowk Kailash Nagar, Industrial Area, Kurud, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ravishankar Sahu S/o Punit Ram Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Ekta Chowk, Kailash Nagar, Indusrial Area, Kurud, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Anil Banjare S/o Dharamdas Banjare Aged About 30 Years R/o Kurud District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Krishna Kumar Gupta S/o Late Kedar Nath Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o Kailash Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Digeshwari Sahu W/o Jeevanlal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Kurud Basti, Near Sheetla Mandir, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Rajesh Mishra Stamp Vendor, Tahsil Parisar, Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate. For Respondent No. 01/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 01/State. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the learned fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) passed in Criminal Revision No. 77/2018, arising out of the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been rejected. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner @led an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. stating that land bearing Khasra No. 151 situated at Village Kurud, P.H. No. 14/19, was recorded in the name of respondent No. 2, who executed an agreement to sell dated 19.05.2015 in favour of the petitioner after receiving Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque. Despite repeated requests, respondent No. 2 failed to execute the sale deed, compelling the petitioner to submit an application before the Tehsildar, Bhilai, on 10.06.2015 seeking restriction on supply of revenue records to third parties. However, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, having knowledge of the said agreement, executed a sale deed dated 04.09.2015 regarding the same land, whereupon the 3 petitioner instituted Civil Suit No. 24-A/2016 before the District Judge, Durg, seeking speci@c performance and declaration of the said sale deed as null and void. During the proceedings, the petitioner discovered another agreement dated 10.04.2015 and, upon enquiry from the stamp vendor, found that the thumb impression recorded in the register did not belong to respondent No. 2, indicating fraud and impersonation by respondent Nos. 3 to 8. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner @led a criminal complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging oCences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate called for a police report, recorded statements of the petitioner and witnesses, and, after considering the material on record, dismissed the application vide order dated 02.04.2018 on the ground that the civil Court, by judgment and decree dated 13.12.2017 in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2016, upheld the sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and, therefore, no prima facie criminal case was made out. 5. The petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Durg, on 30.04.2018, which was dismissed on the reasoning that a complaint cannot be registered merely on possibilities and that, since the civil Court had found the sale deed valid, no ground existed for criminal prosecution. It is alleged that the Magistrate, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., wrongly entered into the merits of the dispute and recorded @ndings, which is impermissible at the pre-registration stage, hence, the present petition. 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has grossly erred in passing the impugned order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under law and has further acted beyond the scope of jurisdiction vested at that stage by recording depositions of the parties, even though there exists no statutory provision permitting such recording of evidence while considering an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. It is further submitted that in the event the learned Magistrate intended to proceed by recording statements or depositions, the proper course available in law was to treat the application as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and proceed accordingly, which admittedly has not been done, and instead the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after entering into the merits of the case and returning speci@c @ndings without proper and lawful application of judicial mind. 7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has impermissibly relied upon the so-called depositions of the parties and has adjudicated factual aspects of the dispute at a pre-registration stage, which is wholly contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as the Magistrate at that stage is only required to consider whether a prima facie case for investigation is made out and is not permitted to evaluate evidence or determine merits. It is also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed a further grave illegality in dismissing the revision 5 petition without appreciating the fundamental procedural irregularities and jurisdictional error committed by the learned Magistrate, and once the Magistrate had applied judicial mind in the manner akin to proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the order purportedly passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. could not have been legally sustain, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below suCer from patent illegality, jurisdictional error, and material irregularity in exercise of judicial power, and are consequently liable to be set aside. 8. 8. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No. 01/State has supported the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Revisional Court and submitted that no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed by the Courts below warranting interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is contended that the dispute between the parties essentially arises out of a transaction relating to agreement to sell and subsequent execution of a registered sale deed, which matter has already been adjudicated by the competent Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2016 vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2017, wherein the sale deed executed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been upheld as valid. It is further submitted that once the Civil Court, on appreciation of evidence, has recorded @ndings with respect to validity of the sale deed and the competing claims of the parties, the attempt of the petitioner to initiate criminal proceedings on the same set of facts clearly reDects an abuse of process of law and is intended to give a criminal colour 6 to a purely civil dispute. It is also submitted that while considering an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate is not bound to mechanically direct registration of FIR and has discretion to apply judicial mind to the allegations and material placed before him so as to ascertain whether the averments disclose commission of a cognizable oCence. In the present case, the learned Magistrate, after calling for a police report and examining the material available on record, has rightly concluded that the allegations are intrinsically connected with a contractual dispute already settled by the Civil Court and do not disclose ingredients of any cognizable oCence warranting investigation. The learned State counsel further submits that the learned Revisional Court has independently considered the entire material and has aFrmed the reasoning of the learned Magistrate by recording cogent @ndings, and therefore, concurrent @ndings of fact recorded by two Courts ought not to be interfered with in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. 9. It is lastly submitted by learned State counsel that the inherent powers of this Court are meant to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, and in the present matter, no such exceptional circumstance is made out by the petitioner; rather, entertaining the petition would amount to permitting continuation of vexatious litigation despite conclusive adjudication by Civil Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7 11. From the perusal of the records, it is evident that the petitioner had @led an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., alleging that respondent No. 2 had executed an agreement to sell dated 19.05.2015 in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 151 situated at Village Kurud, P.H. No. 14/19, after receiving consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, and that despite such agreement the sale deed was subsequently executed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 04.09.2015, leading to institution of Civil Suit No. 24-A/2016 for speci@c performance and declaration, it further appears that during civil proceedings the petitioner alleged fraud on the basis of a purported agreement dated 10.04.2015 and thereafter sought criminal action, however, the learned trial Court, upon calling for a police report and considering the civil Court judgment dated 13.12.2017 wherein the sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 stood upheld, rightly concluded that no prima facie criminal oCence was made out and dismissed the application on 02.04.2018, and the learned Revisional Court, on independent consideration of the material available on record, also correctly aFrmed the said @nding holding that registration of a criminal complaint cannot be founded merely on conjectures once the civil Court has adjudicated the validity of the sale deed, thus, both the Courts below have acted strictly in accordance with law, within the bounds of their jurisdiction, and upon proper appreciation of facts and legal position. 12. Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned orders passed by the 8 learned Magistrate as well as the learned Revisional Court, this Court @nds that the allegations raised by the petitioner stem from a contractual transaction relating to agreement to sell and subsequent transfer of property, which has already been subject matter of adjudication in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2016 and culminated in a judgment and decree dated 13.12.2017 upholding the validity of the sale deed executed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The material placed on record does not prima facie disclose the necessary ingredients of any cognizable oCence so as to mandate registration of FIR or direction for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 13. The learned Magistrate has applied judicial mind to the allegations and surrounding circumstances and, upon consideration of the police report and civil Court’s @ndings, has recorded a reasoned conclusion that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature. The learned Revisional Court has also reappreciated the material and found no in@rmity in the order of the learned Magistrate. It is well settled that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with circumspection, and interference is warranted only where there is patent illegality, perversity or abuse of process of Court. In the present case, no such illegality or jurisdictional error is demonstrated. 14. Accordingly, in absence of any manifest miscarriage of justice or abuse of process, this Court is of the considered view that the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below do not suCer from any in@rmity so as to warrant interference under Section 482 9 Cr.P.C. The petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan