1 2026:CGHC:17044-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1050 of 2026 1 - Avinash Kumar Khandel S/o Late Shri Hariram Khandel Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Rahasbeda, Akaltra, Ward No. 14, Police Station Akaltra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Devendra Kumar Khandel S/o Late Shri Hariram Khandel Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Rahasbeda, Akaltra, Ward No. 14, Police Station Akaltra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station In-Charge Akaltra, District Janjgir-Champa 2 - Smt. Archana Khandel W/o Late Shri Rameshwar Prasad Khandel Aged About 39 Years R/o Township Akaltra, District Janjgir-Champa (Complainant) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Yashkarn Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15.04.2026 1 Heard Mr. Yashkarn Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2 The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 petitioner with the following prayers :- “i. That this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased allow the present petition preferred by the petitioner under section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and Set aside the FIR Registered on 12.09.2025, with FIR Bearing No. 0451. Registered by Police Station Akaltara, District Jangjir Champa, Under Section 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ANNEXURE P/1) iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and Set aside the Charge-sheet Bearing No. 598/2025 filled on 26.12.2025 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Akaltara, District Jangjir Champa, by the Police Station Akaltara, District Jangjir Champa Under Section 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860e (ANNEXURE P/2) iv. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and Set aside the order of Cognizance passed Bearing Criminal Case No. 1948 of 2025 dated 26.12.2025 was passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Akaltara, District Jangjir Champa, Under Section 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ANNEXURE P/3) v. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present petition. vi. Grant, Cost of the Petition.” 3 Brief facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent No.2, who is sister-in-law of the petitioners, lodged an FIR dated 3 12.09.2025 under Sections 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, alleging that the petitioners fraudulently removed her name and that of her daughter from the revenue records of several ancestral lands following the death of her husband, the elder brother of the petitioners. The FIR claimed that the petitioners colluded to forge her signature to effectuate the mutation. The registration of the FIR followed the completion of a revenue case under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, which was initiated by the petitioners to lawfully update the revenue records after the elder brother’s demise. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that FIR suffers from legal infirmity, being arbitrary and an abuse of the criminal process, and does not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioners. Even if the FIR allegations are taken at face value, they are omnibus, vague, and cannot sustain criminal proceedings. He further submitted that the complainant had voluntarily left the marital home and ceased familial ties, making the mutation lawful and justified. The complainant subsequently challenged the mutation through an appeal under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, which was allowed, restoring her name and her daughter’s name in the revenue records. He also submitted that despite redressal of her grievance, the impugned FIR was registered three years after the alleged acts, reflecting a delay that and that it is motivated by revenge and an attempt to harass them and impede their ability to 4 file further appeals. He further asserted that the FIR is an afterthought arising from family disputes and not genuine criminal acts. Supporting documents, including revenue records, digital B1 copies, appellate orders, legal notices, and the family tree filed by the complainant, demonstrate that the grievance had been addressed through lawful civil remedies. He contended that the FIR was filed to harass them, affect the government job of Petitioner No.1, and punish Petitioner No.2, rather than to seek justice for any legitimate criminal wrongdoing. 5 On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the petition lacks merit and the FIR registered against the petitioners is based on serious allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy under Sections 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, which are cognizable and non-bailable in nature. He further submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the FIR is an abuse of the process of law is misplaced, as the registration of an FIR is a preliminary step to investigate allegations of criminal wrongdoing, and it is for the competent police authorities and the court to examine whether the allegations are substantiated. It is further submitted that the petitioners cannot pre-emptively challenge the FIR on the ground that the complainant previously availed civil remedies. The existence of civil proceedings or prior appellate orders does not automatically negate criminal liability if the acts alleged constitute 5 offences under the IPC. He would contend that allegations of forgery, fraudulent mutation of revenue records, and criminal conspiracy, as stated in the FIR, are distinct from civil disputes regarding property rights and cannot be dismissed merely on the basis of family discord. 6 Upon careful consideration of the petition, the documents annexed thereto, and the submissions of learned counsel, it is observed that the FIR dated 12.09.2025 under Sections 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC alleges forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy relating to the mutation of revenue records. The petitioners contend that the FIR arises out of a civil/family dispute and that the grievance had already been redressed through the revenue authorities and appellate process. 7 It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), that a criminal proceeding can only be quashed in cases where it is manifestly vexatious, mala fide, or has no element of a cognizable offence. In the present matter, the FIR alleges specific acts of forgery and manipulation of official records. Even if the dispute has civil aspects, such allegations cannot be summarily dismissed, as emphasized in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2008 SC 251, where the Court held that the existence of civil disputes does not automatically prevent investigation into alleged criminal acts if prima facie the allegations disclose cognizable offences. 6 8 The petitioners’ contentions regarding delay, motive, or harassment are speculative and do not preclude investigation. The FIR alleges manipulation of official records and potential criminal acts, which require proper inquiry to determine their truth. The court cannot substitute the investigative process at this stage, and there is no material to demonstrate that the FIR is entirely frivolous, mala fide, or an abuse of the process of law. The petitioners have failed to make out any ground for quashing the FIR, and as such, no interference is warranted at this stage. 9 Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed,. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra