1 2026:CGHC:14244-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 500 of 2024 Shrawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Sukhdev Lal Agrawal Aged About 64 Years R/o Station Para, Hathband, Police Station Hathband, District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Hathband, District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Subhash Sarkar S/o Punnchand Sarkar, Resident Of Mohbhatta, Baloda Bazaar, Disrict Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.03.27 11:44:29 +0530 2 heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No.1 / State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may finally we please do quash the impugned First Information Report dated 01.12.2023 (ANNEXURE P- 1) being crime No. 135/2023 for the alleged offences under Section 435 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the present Applicant in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 302/75 admeasuring 1.0810 hectares situated at Mouja Mohbhatta, Tehsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara, and had initially permitted the complainant to cultivate the said land for a limited period under a lease arrangement dated 01.06.2020, followed by execution of a power of attorney dated 23.06.2021 only for the purposes of cultivation; however, owing to disputes and misconduct on the part of the complainant, the petitioner duly terminated the said arrangement by issuing a public notice in a newspaper on 26.04.2022, submitting representations before the revenue authorities on 04.05.2022, and formally revoking the power of attorney by notice dated 22.05.2022, thereby rendering any authority of the complainant null and void. It is contended that despite such termination, the complainant continued to create obstruction, indulge in criminal trespass, threaten the petitioner’s servants, and interfere with 3 possession, in respect whereof multiple complaints were made by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police and local authorities on various dates, but no action was taken. It is further submitted that the land in question was subsequently sold by the petitioner on 06.02.2023 to third parties, and the petitioner had no subsisting concern with the property thereafter; however, with a view to harass and falsely implicate the petitioner due to prior enmity, the complainant lodged the impugned FIR on 01.12.2023 alleging an incident dated 15.03.2023 regarding burning of crops, which is highly belated and suffers from unexplained delay of several months, thereby casting serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. It is thus submitted that the FIR is manifestly malafide, an abuse of the process of law, and has been instituted only to settle personal scores arising out of a civil dispute relating to land, and therefore deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned State counsel submits, on the basis of instructions received from the concerned authorities, that the investigation in the present case has been duly conducted and, upon completion thereof, charge-sheet has already been filed against certain co-accused persons before the competent Court, however, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, no charge-sheet has been filed till date as no sufficient material has been found against him during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the matter is being dealt with strictly in accordance with law and depending upon the outcome of further investigation, appropriate steps shall be taken by the investigating agency, and therefore, at this stage, no cause of action survives for 4 adjudication in the present petition. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel, and perused the material available on record. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the nature of grievance raised in the present petition, no further adjudication is required at this stage. The petition is accordingly disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, as may be available in accordance with law, if any cause of action arises in future. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet