1 2026:CGHC:4443 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 06.11.2025 Judgment delivered on : 27.01.2026 Uploaded on : 29.01. 2026 CRMP No. 2632 of 2025 1. Premnath Joshi (Wrongly Mentioned As Premkant Joshi In Notice) S/o Late Bholanath Joshi Aged About 53 Years Branmin By Cast And R/o Village Kumharawand, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Genda Prasad Joshi S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad Joshi Aged About 51 Years Branmin By Cast And R/o Village Kumharawand, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Rewa Prasad Joshi S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad Joshi Aged About 49 Years Branmin By Cast And R/o Village Kumharawand, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Jhumuk Lal Joshi S/o Ganesh Prasad Joshi Aged About 47 Years Branmin By Cast And R/o Village Kumharawand, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O昀케cer, Ajak Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh 3. The Superintendent Of Police District Bastar, Chhattisgarh 4. Raghunath S/o Son Singh Caste-Dhurwa, R/o Village Palli, Tahsil Jag- Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.01.29 11:01:22 +0530 2 dalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh ----Respondent/s For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, along with Mr. M.L. Saket, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble S hri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge C.A.V. Judgment 1. By way of instant Petition 昀椀led under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner is challenging the legality of a notice in Special Case (Atrocities) No. 07/2025 for appearance on 24.07.2025 before the Court of learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) and also challenging the inaction on the part of the present respondent No. 4 Raghunath Singh and his associates not permitting the petitioners to carry out agriculture activities in their own land vide Annexure P/4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are owners of land bearing Khasra No.13, 31, 86 area 4.550, 1.380, 0.710 hectare, total 6.640 hectare, situated in village Palli, PC No.2, RI Circle Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, which will be referred hereinafter to as 'the said land', and the respondent No.4 and his associates /predecessors etc. have initiated proceeding under Section 170B of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code of 1959') which culminated into a decision in WPC No.2593/2023 and against which writ appeal was same was also also preferred, the dismissed by this Hon'ble Court and thereafter the respondent 3 No.4/parties to proceedings, have unsuccessfully approached Hon'ble Apex Court. After the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioners approached the revenue authorities and in revenue No.202412150300027/01-A-23/2024-25 case the order dated 31.12.2024 has been passed by the SDO (R), Jagdalpur in favour of petitioners directing correction of records in the name of petitioners or his family members and delivery of possession. Thereafter on 1.1.2025 the revenue authorities have taken initiative of the compliance of the orders of this Hon'ble Court / Apex Court and the possession of petitioners have been restored vide order dated 15.1.2025. 3. In substance contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners got justice in the hands of the Courts of law after a long drawn litigation, right from the Court of Tahsildar to Apex Court, and the petitioners have become entitled to use and enjoy the fruits of the order passed by the Courts of law in respect of the said property pro and corresponding duty of the respondents were/are is to obey the orders of courts of law and not to interfere with possession of petitioners and the duty of the respondent authorities being sentinel qui ve of the petitioners' fundamental and constitutional rights is also to protect the possession over the said property, maintain law and order, and not to take any action against the petitioners in respect of their lawful acts over the said property and necessity has arisen of approaching this Hon'ble Court in view of the fact that the respondent No.4 has 昀椀led complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities) for 4 taking cognizance of the o昀昀ences regarding which the petitioners have been served with the notice issued by the said Court of law along with copy of complaint for their appearance on 24.7.2025. In compliance of the order of the court of law, the petitioners being duty bound appeared before the Court and furnished bail bonds. 4. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for exercise of their rights for the said piece of land and anticipating abuse of process of law and abuse of process of court by respondent No.4 and his associates, the petitioners have made an application dated 22.1.2025, 28.1.2025 to the police authorities and sought protection but it appears that police authorities were also helpless to a large extent and they have 昀椀led an Istagasha under Section 126/135 of BNS 2023 and also thereafter registered a criminal case under FIR No.16/2025 for the o昀昀ence under Section 296, 115 (2), 351 (2) and 3 (5) of the BNSS, 2023. Copy of applications dated 27.1.2025 & 28.1.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that while petitioners want to carry out agriculture activities over their own land, they have not been allowed to carry out the activities and till date the land belonging to the petitioners has been fully ploughed and further activities of agriculture i.e. seeding has not been allowed to commence although the agriculture season is expiring for this purpose. Having failed in their attempt to use and enjoy their own land regarding which this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Apex Court have passed orders and in 5 compliance thereof, the State authority concerned allowed the petitioners to possess the land but the said order of delivery of possession in e昀昀ect has not been complied with or although the petitioners are in possession of the land on papers but the respondent No.4 and his associates with the henchmen in crime had created such an atmosphere that it has become impossible for the petitioners to reach their own land and time and again the petitioners have approached the authorities but the authorities are 昀椀nding it di昀케cult to protect the petitioners and it appears that the respondent No.4 and his associates have no regard for rule of law, the petitioners being in peculiar situation are approaching this Hon'ble Court. Being the owner of said land, the petitioners have all the right to use and enjoy the said property to its fullest and corresponding duty is cast on respondent No.4 not to interfere with rights of petitioners and in case of violation the respondent authorities are duty bound to act in the manner so that there may be no hindrance caused in peaceful enjoyment of the said property. However it appears that respondent authorities have only registered the case under FIR, Annexure P-6, against certain persons and thereafter refused to protect the petitioners or create an atmosphere for peaceful enjoyment of property and thus the petitioners are seeking constitutional protection from this Hon'ble Court by an appropriate order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of 6 court and abuse of process of law in the above factual backdrop and law of land and therefore, the said proceeding is also liable to be nipped at the bud. Moreover the present is the case where the petitioners or their predecessors are in settled possession of the said land since the year 1935 and have been divested illegally by respondent No.4 and his associates regarding which the orders have been passed by this Hon'ble Court and Apex Court, in compliance of which possession of petitioners has been restored but still the petitioners are not in use and enjoyment of the said property as respondent authorities are 昀椀nding it di昀케cult to take appropriate action against the respondent No.4 and other persons and e昀昀ect of which is that the petitioners failed to carry out agriculture activity after ploughing the 昀椀eld and since the authorities have not taken action desired from them of maintaining peace, law and order so that the citizens may enjoy their property, therefore, the petitioners have no other option but to approach this Hon'ble Court invoking various jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court particularly jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS as for rightful enjoyment of property the petitioners are facing criminal prosecution. The revenue authorities are bound to take action against any person whosoever be a member of scheduled community as they cannot be permitted to abuse process of law mainly for the reason that they belong to a community noti昀椀ed by the government. Moreover the State authorities cannot adopt hands-o昀昀 attitude in respect of the acts of omission and commission against the member of scheduled 7 community and ought to have given equal treatment to the petitioners and is bound to provide security to the petitioners and other persons who are owners of the said land so that they may be able to carry out and complete agriculture operation on the said land and reap the fruits of the orders passed in their favour by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. 7. Learned State Counsel further submits that vide the impugned notice Annexure P/4, issued by the Court of the learned Special Court wherein, only a notice has been issued and served upon the present petitioners informing them that, a Special Sessions Case (Atrocities) has been 昀椀led in the Court under Sections 294, 323 and 506 Part I of the IPC and under Section 3 (1) (R) (S) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore they are instructed to appear before the Court either personally or through an advocate to submit their reply/a昀케davit etc., but the present petitioners have directly approached this Hon'ble Court challenging the aforesaid notice instead of appearing before the learned Special Court for submitting their reply/a昀케davit etc to prove their innocence. 8. The State Counsel further submitted that during the meantime, an FIR has already been registered on 27.01.2025 under Crime No. 16/2025 by the Police of Police Station Frejarpur (Parpa), District Bastar (C.G.) against the present Respondent No. 4/Raghunath Singh Baghel and other accused persons on the basis of the complaint made by the present petitioners for the o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 296, 115 (2), 351 (2), 3 (5) and 125 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and the 8 matter has been taken into investigation. During investigation, the statements of the relevant witnesses have duly been recorded and after due investigation, the Challan has been prepared against the accused persons. Accordingly, the action is being taken by the concerned police authorities in the matter against the accused persons. Thus, there is no in昀椀rmity or illegally on the part of the Respondents Police Department. Moreover, it is evident that the Police has inquired into the matter on the basis of the complaint made by the complainants/present petitioners, as the matter was enquired to ascertain the facts on which, upon collecting documentary evidences, prima facie, it was found that, there is cognizable o昀昀ence is made out and accordingly, the action has been taken in the matter against the accused persons including the present Respondent No. 4 in the matter and subsequently, the aforesaid FIR Annexure R/1 has been registered by the concerned Police Station in accordance with law, thereafter, a free, fair and transparent investigation has been carried out by the investigating authority. The Police is not at all in昀氀uenced by the status or position of any of the parties concerned and the matter had duly been investigated in accordance with law and after due investigation, the restrictive action has been taken in the matter and subsequently, the aforesaid FIR has been registered by the concerned Police Station against the accused persons including the present Respondent No. 4. Therefore, the instant petition as framed and 昀椀led by the petitioners, is without any substance & merit, thus, the same is 9 liable to be dismissed at it's, as the Petitioners have failed to show any good cause in the instant Petition for seeking indulgence of this Hon'ble Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10.From the perusal of the pleadings and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the petitioners have already succeeded in the revenue proceedings as well as before this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to their title and possession over the land bearing Khasra Nos. 13, 31 and 86, total area admeasuring 6.640 hectares, situated at Village Palli, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar. In compliance of the orders passed by the competent courts, the revenue authorities have restored possession of the said land in favour of the petitioners and necessary correction in the revenue records has also been carried out. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite restoration of possession in their favour, the respondents are unlawfully obstructing them from entering upon and cultivating their own land, and whenever the petitioners attempt to carry out agricultural activities, frivolous and vexatious complaints are lodged against them with the intent to harass and deter them from peaceful enjoyment of the property. 11.So far as the challenge to the impugned notice issued by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) in Special Case No. 07/2025 is concerned, it is evident that the said notice is only a notice of appearance issued 10 upon a private complaint and it does not result in any coercive action. The petitioners have already appeared before the learned Special Court and furnished bail bonds. At this stage, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners merely by issuance of the notice, and the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 12.So far as the grievance relating to alleged abuse of criminal process and false implication is concerned, it is well settled that this Court, while exercising inherent or supervisory jurisdiction, does not ordinarily prohibit criminal proceedings at a initial stage unless a clear case of abuse of process of law or lack of jurisdiction is made out on the face of the record. The allegations made in the complaint forming subject- matter of the proceedings before the learned Special Court are required to be examined by the said Court in accordance with law. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, does not conduct a mini-trial or examine the veracity of allegations at a preliminary stage. 13.It is trite law that when a statute provides a complete mechanism for redressal of grievances, including the opportunity to appear, 昀椀le reply, seek discharge or raise all permissible objections before the competent court, the inherent or extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court ought not to be invoked at the threshold. The petitioners admittedly have already appeared before the learned Special Court and are fully entitled to avail 11 all remedies available to them under law. 14.,As regards the prayer for protection and non-interference in agricultural activities, it is borne out from the record that an FIR has already been registered against respondent No.4 and others on the complaint of the petitioners and the police machinery has been set into motion. The petitioners, therefore, have e昀케cacious remedies available before the concerned police authorities, Executive Magistrate and other competent forums under the Code to seek preventive and protective measures, as and when required. An e昀케cacious remedy is also available to them by instituting appropriate civil proceedings before the competent civil court seeking relief of injunction and other consequential remedies in accordance with law. 15.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have approached this Court prematurely without exhausting the statutory remedies available to them. No exceptional circumstance or abuse of process is made out warranting interference by this Court at this stage. 16.Consequently, the petition, being devoid of merit and 昀椀led despite availability of alternative e昀케cacious remedies, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti