1 2026:CGHC:2755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1468 of 2022 1 - Lakhan Singh Thakur @ Lakhan S/o Lt. Kuber Singh Thakur Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Pahanda, Tahsil Patan, Police Station Amleshwar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Yashwant Singh Thakur @ Ravi Singh S/o Lakhan Singh Thakur Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Pahanda, Tahsil Patan, Police Station Amleshwar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Amleshwar, Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Lakhan Ram Sahu (Deleted) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 10-10-2022, 20-11-2024 And 27-11-2024. 3.1 - (A) Smt. Ganeshiya Sahu W/o Late Lakhan Ram Sahu, R/o Village-Pahanda, Tehsil-Patan, P.S.-Amleshwar, District-Durg (C.G.) 490042. 4 - (Deleted) Aalen Singh Sahu S/o Chamru Ram Sahu (Died) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 20-11-2024 And 27-11-2024. 2 (Deleted As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 06-01-2025) 4.1 - (A) Punit Sahu S/o Late Aalen Singh Sahu, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village-Pahanda, Tehsil Patan, P.S.-Amleshwar, District-Durg (C.G.) 490042. 4.2 - (B) Keshav Sahu S/o Late Aalen Singh Sahu, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village-Pahanda, Tehsil Patan, P.S.-Amleshwar, District-Durg (C.G.) 490042. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samdarsh Nirankari, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 and 2/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, Gy. G.A. For Respondents No.4A & 4B : Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Samdarsh Nirankari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, learned Dy. G.A. appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State as well as Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4A and 4B. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief: “i. That the entire records pertaining to the present case may kindly be called for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court 3 ii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 17/08/2022 passed by the learned 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in criminal revision no. 142/2022, refusing to set aside the order framing charges under sections 420/34, 465, 467 of the IPC, passed by the learned JMFC, Bhilai-3, Durg, in criminal 226/2018 vide order dated 17/06/2022, and therefore, all the resultant criminal proceedings, in the interest of Justice. iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of Justice, may be awarded.” 3. Brief facts of the present case, as stated by the petitioners, are that the learned trial Court has erroneously framed charges against the petitioners without properly appreciating the material on record. It is contended that, as per the prosecution case itself, the allegations are baseless, as there is no evidence to show that, without any permission or order of the Revenue Department, the petitioners got the land situated at Village Pahanda, P.H.N. No. 4, Khasra No. 323, Rakba 1.81 hectares, mutated in their names by forging or tampering with documents, whereas the said land was alleged to be government grass land. It is further stated that no material evidence has been produced to demonstrate as to how petitioner No.2 got the land mutated in his name and, therefore, no offence is made out against him. The learned trial Court failed to consider that, insofar as the alleged forgery of documents is concerned, the said documents were never in possession of the 4 petitioners and, accordingly, the offences under Sections 465 and 467 IPC are not attracted. It is also contended that no confessional statement has been made against the petitioners, yet the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order. 4. The petitioners further submit that petitioner No.2 was a minor at the relevant time and there is no allegation or material on record to show any conspiracy between him and the Patwari or other revenue officials, nor is there any material to constitute abetment. It is also stated that the land in question has now been re-mutated in the name of the Government, the petitioners have never carried out any agricultural activity on the said land, no change has been made in its physical condition, and no benefit has been derived by the petitioners, nor has any loss been caused to the Government. 5. It is further contended that no revenue record prior to the year 2001 has been placed on record to establish that the land was pasture land at the relevant time. Moreover, even as per the final report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the essential ingredients of any offence are not made out, as it is not clear as to how the name of petitioner No.2 came to be mutated in respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.142/2022, whereby, the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2022. Hence, the petition. 5 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the very initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings against them is a gross abuse of the process of law and the court. The material available on record, including the FIR and charge-sheet, does not disclose the essential ingredients of any cognizable offence, particularly under Sections 420/34, 465 and 467 IPC. There is no allegation of dishonest inducement, wrongful gain or wrongful loss, nor any material to establish criminal intention or knowledge on the part of the petitioners. He further submits that the learned JMFC, Bhilai-3, District Durg, has framed charges in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and without establishing any nexus between the alleged acts of the petitioners and the ingredients of the offences charged. Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet attributes any specific role to the petitioners in the alleged insertion of names in the revenue records, nor is there any material to show that the petitioners were aware of such insertion or had any involvement therein. He also submits that there is no material on record to make out offences of cheating or forgery, as defined under Sections 420, 465 and 467 IPC. Mutation entries in revenue records are fiscal in nature and do not create, extinguish or transfer title, as consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. No document amounting to a “valuable security” was forged, altered or used by the petitioners, nor was any property delivered or loss caused to the State or the village public. The petitioners derived no benefit, monetary or otherwise, from the 6 alleged mutation. It is lastly contended that the continuation of the prosecution would amount to a fishing and roving enquiry, which is impermissible in criminal law. In the absence of any prima facie case, mens rea, or culpable conduct attributable to the petitioners, the impugned order framing charges is illegal, perverse and unsustainable in law. Therefore, in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, the impugned order deserves to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondents No.4A and 4B oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) as well as Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) after considering all the aspects of the matter have rightly passed the orders in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) has dismissed the criminal revision i.e. CRR No.142/2022 vide order dated 17.08.2022 holding that the learned JMFC, Bhilai-3, Durg has committed no illegality or material irregularity in framing charges against the petitioners under Sections 420/34, 465 and 467 of the 7 IPC. The revisional Court, after framing the point for determination as to whether the order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the learned JMFC, Durg was illegal, unjust or perverse, has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C. and has rightly held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists and whether the charges can be said to be groundless. The learned revisional Court has correctly observed that meticulous evaluation of evidence, consideration of probable defence, or a roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible at this stage and that strong suspicion founded on the material collected by the prosecution is sufficient to frame charges. 10. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge has also rightly relied upon the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and other authoritative pronouncements, holding that while exercising revisional or inherent jurisdiction, the Court cannot look into defence material and must confine itself to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C. The revisional Court has further recorded a categorical finding that the police report and the documents produced by the prosecution disclose prima facie material indicating meeting of minds of the accused persons, including the petitioners, and that the revenue records prima facie 8 reveal forgery and illegal mutation of government land in the name of petitioner No.2, who remained beneficiary thereof, notwithstanding the plea of minority raised by the petitioners. Moreover, so far as the plea of minority/juvenility raised on behalf of petitioner No. 2 is concerned, the Court made a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any such plea had been raised before the trial Court or not, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such plea had been raised, as it transpires from the impugned order itself that petitioner No. 2 is a minor. When a further query was made to the counsel for petitioner No. 2 regarding the documentary evidence in support of the plea of juvenility annexed with the petition, he stated that no such documents had been filed. 11. This Court finds that the learned revisional Court has exercised its jurisdiction judiciously and has assigned cogent and sustainable reasons for affirming the order framing charges. The contentions raised by the petitioners essentially pertain to their defence, alleged absence of mens rea, lack of benefit, re-mutation of land and sufficiency or reliability of evidence, all of which are matters to be tested during trial and cannot be adjudicated upon at the stage of framing of charge or in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The impugned orders passed by the learned JMFC as well as the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge do not suffer from perversity, illegality or non-application of mind so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9 12. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The interim order if any stands vacated. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil