1 2026:CGHC:17309-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 851 of 2026 Mohd. Salim Javed S/o Late Abdul Sattar Aged About 65 Years R/o Mominpura, Near Nurani Masjid, P.S. Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S H O), P.S.- Ambikapur, District Sarguja, C.G. 2 - Umeshwar Singh Baaj S/o Punna Ram Baaj Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Tahsildar Ambikapur, R/o Tahsildar Office, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, 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. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.22 10:29:51 +0530 2 2. Present is a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, filed by the petitioner challenging the registration of FIR, charge-sheet, taking cognizance of the offence by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambikapur and proceedings of the Criminal case No. 10095/2025 and prayed the following relief in the petition :- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the registration of FIR No. 0.659 of 2024 lodged in P.S. Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja (CG) dated 27.09.2024, along with Charge-sheet No. 661/2025 dated 01.12.2025, taking cognizance of alleged offences under Section 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), 61 (2), 238, 111, 341 (1) & 342 (2) of BNS, 2023 dated 06.12.2025 in Criminal Case No. 10095/2025 pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja (CG), in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the Crime No. 659 of 2024 registered at P.S. Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja. Along with the petitioner/ accused, three other accused persons are their against whom charge-sheet has been filed. The allegation against the petitioner and accused persons are that the Tahsildar, Ambikapur lodged a report to the Police that with respect to revenue case before the tahsildar, an order dated 20.10.2021 purportedly passed by Board of Revenue in Case No. RN/16/R/A-6/275/2021 (Meena Gupta Vs. Manjusha Deve and others) which was found suspicious and an enquiry was conducted by the Collector, Sarguja. A report was obtained from Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in which the said order was reported to be forged. The said order pertains to mutation in favour of Meena Gupta 3 with respect to land Khasra No. 256/3 Area 0.048 Hec and khasra No. 273, Area 0.021 Hec. situated at Village- Mayapur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja. The allegation against the present petitioner is that, he along with other co-accused Mohd. Dastgir Ansari, Mohd. Murtaja Ali, have got prepared the forged order of Board of Revenue, Bilaspur and produced it before the Tahsildar, Ambikapur. After considering sufficient prima facie material available against the accused persons, charge- sheet has been filed against them which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no material available against the petitioner that he in any manner with the connivance of other accused persons prepared the forged order or involved in the offence. Only on suspicion the present petitioner has been made accused on an oral statement of the witnesses. Nothing incriminating material has been seized from the possession of the present petitioner. While making his submission, he is referred to the document annexed at Page No. 86 of the petition which is the memo sent by the Investigating Officer, P.S. Kotwali Ambikapur to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur dated 04.12.2025 and submitted that the Investigating Officer himself considered about discrepancies in the evidence and involvement of the present petitioner and has reported to the Senior Superintend of Police for calling of the sufficient documents from the Revenue Departments as well as the relevant documents of the concerned Board of Revenue with respect to issuance of certified copy of the said order. He vehemently submitted that when 4 the Police authorities themselves have not found any sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner, he cannot be put to face trial of the criminal case, therefore, the petition may be allowed and the FIR as well as charge-sheet and proceeding of the criminal case against the petitioner may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have submitted that there are sufficient prima facie material available in the charge-sheet against the petitioner that he along with other accused persons have got prepared forged order purportedly passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue and produced it before the Tahsildar for mutation in the name of the accused Meena Gupta. From the material collected during the investigation, it is found that in the inquiry conducted by the Collector, Sarguja found that the subject order produced before the Tahsildar is forged one, which was on the basis of communication made by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue. He would also submit that Page 86 of the present petition is a memo sent by the investigating officer to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur informing about the scrutiny raised by the public prosecutor pointed out at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. The reference relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the opinion of the Police authorities, but the queries raised by the public prosecutor. He would further submit that from the statement of the witnesses Kanhaiya Prasad Gupta, Mohd. Hasim Mansuri, Masoom Qureshi, Suryakant Sharma, Manbodh Kumar Kaushik, Maniram Netam and M. Padmavati, 5 the collusion between the accused persons and their involvement in the offence are prima facie disclosed, therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the material available in the writ petition, it transpires that there are allegation of preparing forged order allegedly issued by the Board of Revenue which was ultimately found forged in an inquiry conducted by the Collector, Sarguja. The said order was with respect to the mutation in the name of Meena Gupta who is also a co- accused in the case. From the statement of Tahsildar, Ambikapur, it is prima facie appears that the subject order dated 20.10.2021 is found forged. Kanhaiya Prasad Gupta is the husband of Meena Gupta in whose favour the said order was produced. He alleged that the co- accused Mohd. Murtaja called him for mutation of name of his wife Meena Gupta and he also assured that he is having relation with the revenue authorities. An agreement was also executed between Mohd. Murtaja and his wife and gave him Rs. 8 lakhs in various installments. From the statement of Mohd. Hasim Mansuri who is the friend of Mohd. Murtaja, the involvement of the present petitioner Mohd. Salim Javed disclosed that he being a property dealer. He delivered Rs. 4,60,000/- to him on the instance of Mohd. Murtaja and subsequently Mohd. Murtaja Informed him that the present petitioner is engaged in preparing Patta in the names of non ab original tribes and since Meena had purchased the property of ab original tribe, for preparing a Patta in the name of 6 non-ab-original tribe, he gave money to the petitioner. In the month of November-December, 2021, the present petitioner handed over certain documents to Mohd. Murtaja and disclosed that the said document is relevant for Patta in favour of Meena Gupta. Similar, the statement of Masoom Qureshi. There are other witnesses also who said about the involvement of other co-accused persons, however, all the accused persons prepared a syndicate and in collision thereof they committed the offence by preparing forged order of Board of Revenue so that the co-accused Meena Gupta may be benefited. 8. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the memo dated 04.12.2025, the investigating officer himself not assured about the evidence against the petition is also found misconceived. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others1 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC/ 528 of B.N.S.S should be exercised, which are as under: - "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly 8 and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 10. In the case of (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) in (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. In para 23.1 to 33.15, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:- 23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under 9 Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. 10 Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; 11. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the allegation against the petitioner, statement of the witnesses Kanhaiya Prasad Gupta, Mohd. Hasim Mansuri, Masoom Qureshi, Suryakant Sharma, Shyam Narayan Pandey, Manbodh Kumar Kaushik, Mani Ram Netam and M. Padmavati and also from the FIR as well as other material collected during the investigation, in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) there are sufficient prima facie evidence available in the 11 charge-sheet against the petitioner to proceed against him in the trial in which we do not find any scope for interference and to quash the FIR or charge-sheet against the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the present CrMP filed by the petitioner fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika