1 2026:CGHC:16880 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5503 of 2021 1 - Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Prem Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village And Post Dhardei Police Station Shivrinarayan Tahsil Pamgarh, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pamgarh, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Krishan Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri Jagmohan Singh R/o Village And Post Dhardei, Police Station Shivrinarayan Tahsil Pamgarh, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.04.21 11:09:49 +0530 2 S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Revenue Case No.202109061100080/B/121 pending before respondent no. 2. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay the cost of petition to the petitioner. 10.4 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3- Krishna Kumar Singh filed an application before respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pamgarh District Jangjir-Champa (CG) seeking strict action against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner has submitted a false complaint against him. Respondent No.3 contended that the petitioner’s complaint , alleging illegal storage 3 of 200 sacks of urea fertiflizer by him, was baseless. Upon an enquiry conducted by respondent No.2 at the residence of respondent No.3, only 25 sacks of urea fertilizer were found. It was further contended in the application that the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Secretary of Gram Panchayat and was also convicted in a forgery case. Respondent No.3, claiming a risk of future frivolous complaints, sought action against the petitioner. Subsequently, Revenue Case No.202109061100080-B-121 was registered and notices were issued to the petitioner for submission of reply and appearance in connection with the complaint filed by respondent No.3. The petitioner submitted reply to the application, however, a subsequent notice dated 6.12.2021 was issued for his appearance on 10.12.2021. It is contended that respondent No.2 is acting at the behest of respondent No.3 to harass the petitioner, as there is no provision under the law to entertain such a complaint, yet the authority has proceeded to do so. Hence, this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not file any complaint against respondent No.3-Krishna Kumar Singh before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) (respondent No.2). He submits that an unauthorized complaint was made by an unknown person in the petitioner’s name, acting upon which, the concerned authority issued notices to the petitioner. He submits that since the petitioner did not make any complaint against respondent No.3 before the concerned Sub Division 4 Officer (Revenue), there is no basis for issuing notices to the petitioner or initiating any enquiry against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that being aggrieved by the initiation of the proceedings and successive notices issued against him, the present petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the entire proceedings initiated by the concerned SDO(R) are not in accordance with law. He also submits that since the petitioner denies having made any complaint, issuance of any notice against him is unwarranted. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the petitioner has disowned the subject complaint by way of the present petition and supporting affidavit, this Court is of the opinion that there remains no legal ground for the SDO(R), Pamgarh (respondent No.2) to continue proceedings against the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, Revenue Case No.202109061100080-B-121 (pending before respondent No.2) as well as the proceedings emanating therefrom, initiated by the SDO(R), Pamgarh are hereby quashed. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay