ROHIT v. State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District

: Ms. Meena Gangwani & Mr. Piyush Gangwani in person. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/04/2025

The applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 149/2025, registered at Police Station – Torwa, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

As per the prosecution story, the incident was occurred on

10.03.2022 and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 08.04.2025. The F.I.R. was lodged after near about 3 years inter alia on the allegations that, the complainant Meena Gangwani is the owner of Khasra No. 445 area 0.0360 hectare. It has been alleged that, the said property belongs to her husband and after his death, she has inherited the property. It has also been alleged that, during the lifetime of her husband namely Ramchandra Gangwani, the dispute in respect of the property and possession was going on with Ashok Ubrani, who was the owner of Khasra No. 453/9 & 454/10. It has been alleged that, the applicant No.1 Dularam Motwani was appointed as power of attorney holder. Dularam Motwani has demolished the said boundary wall and since the disputes pertains to the boundaries of the properties, Dularam 3 Motwani has instituted the proceedings in the name of Meena Gangwani by making the forge signature and made an application for demarcation of the land on 10.03.2022. It has been alleged that in place of the complainant some other lady appeared before Court of Additional Tehsildar and obtained the demarcation report.

Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case, the allegations that Ashok Ubrani executed the power of attorney in favour of Dularam Motwani/applicant No.1 are baseless and without any substance. Ashok Ubrani was the erstwhile owner of Khasra No. 453/1 & 454/1. Vide registered sale deeds dated 12.04.2010 & 25.03.2010 Ashok Ubrani had sold the property to Meena Motwani W/o Dularam, Versha Motwani W/o Narendra Motwani, Bhawna W/o Mahendra and Sakshi W/o Rajendra and possession of the property bearing Khasra No. 453/1 & 454/1, area 3484.5 Sqft. and 11087.5 Sqft. were handed over to the purchasers and after the mutation the said khasra numbers have been renumbered as Khasra No. 453/9, 453/10, 454/9, 454/10 and is recorded in the name of the purchasers. ANNEXURE A/3 are the copies of the relevant portion of the sale deeds dated 12.04.2010 & 25.03.2010. He further argued that the dispute in respect of the boundaries of the lands belongs to the husband of the complainant bearing Khasra No.445 area

0.0360 hectare and the land belongs to Ashok Ubrani were going on since long. The Ashok Ubrani made an application for 4 demarcation and on the basis of the demarcation report, the application under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code was filed before the Tehsildar Bilaspur and vide order dated

17.09.2009, the said application was allowed and the order was passed against Ramchandra Gangwani. ANNEXURE A/4 is the Copy of the order dated 17.09.2009. The SDM vide its order dated

30.12.2009 has set-aside the said order. The appeal was preferred before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide its order dated 29.05.2011 has allowed the appeal preferred by Ashok Ubrani and the order of Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer were set-aside and Tehsildar has been directed to conduct the fresh demarcation and after hearing both the parties, the Tehsildar was directed to pass a fresh order.

Mr. Paranjpe also argued that earlier also when the complainant and her son have illegally encroached over the land of the applicant No.1/Dularam Motwani and his family members, Dularam Motwani made an application before Tehsildar, Bilaspur under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code and notices were issued to the respondents and the said matter was ultimately dismissed on 19.03.2025. ANNEXURE A/5 is the copy of the order sheets of the Court of Naib Tehsildar Bilaspur and ANNEXURE A/6 is the copy of the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by Tehsildar Bilaspur. He contended that the allegations that applicant No.1 by making the forge signature made an application for demarcation before Tehsildar, Bilaspur are without any 5 substance. It appears that complainant herself made an application for demarcation and when she realized that the demarcation has been conducted and the report is against her, she made a complaint before the authorities. There is no evidence which shows that the said application was made by the present applicant No.1, in fact in the alleged demarcation proceedings the panchnama was prepared and in the said panchnama the alleged so called lady has refused to sign the panchnama, it is but obivious that, if the said application was made on the instance of the applicant No.1 and the applicant No.1 has projected someone as Meena Gangwani, the said so called lady would have signed the panchnama. ANNEXURE A/7 is the copy of the relevant portion of the panchnama along with the report dated 22.04.2022.

Mr. Paranjpe further contended that the complainant and her son were very well aware in respect of the said report, but they keep quite till 2025. In revision preferred by the complainant, the Additional Collector vide its order dated 06.02.2025 has allowed the revision and order of the Tehsildar has been set-aside. ANNEXURE A/8 is the copy of the order dated 06.02.2025. The Additional Collector has directed that the complainant will make a fresh application in accordance with law and the said application should have been decided in accordance with law. He also contended that the first complaint was made before the Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur and the second complaint i.e. present F.I.R. has been lodged in Police Station Torwa. There is a material 6 omissions and contradictions in both the complaints. ANNEXURE A/9 is the copy of the complaint made to Inspector General, Bilaspur Range on 10.10.2024 and the statement of complainant and son were recorded. In fact Dularam Motwani made a complaint to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 15.11.2022 that the son of the complainant and the family members are trying to falsely implicate. ANNEXURE A/10 is the copy of the complaint.

Mr. Paranjpe submitted that the dispute pertaining to the lands has been given the color of criminal offence. Earlier the son of the complainant has lodged the false F.I.R. against Narendra Motwani and the said case is pending, but in the said case, after cross- examination on 06.08.2024, the son of the complainant is not coming forward and from 06.08.2024 to till date his part of cross examination could not be recorded due to one or the other reason. ANNEXURE A/11 is the copy of the statement of Piyush Gangwani. This conduct of the son of the complainant itself shows that, the applicants were falsely been implicated. He further submitted that any how the complainant and her son are trying to grab the lands belongs to the applicants and in fact they have encroached over the land of the applicants purchased by them vide registered sale deeds. The dispute pertains to the land is going on since long and so many revenue proceedings have been initiated by both the parties against each other, even the dispute in respect of the said land was also going on between the complainant and erstwhile owner of the property namely Ashok 7 Ubrani. He also submitted that on the instance of applicant, the FIR No. 291/2022 dated 07.07.2022 was also registered. ANNEXURE A/12 is the copy of the FIR of Crime No. 291/2022 registered on the instance of the applicant. It has been submitted that the applicant No.1 Dularam Motwani is 70 years old man and is suffering from various disease. It has been submitted that the ingredients of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code are completely missing and in absence of wrongful gain or wrongful loss, the offence of cheating would not be made out. In support of his contention he placed reliance in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Vijaya Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 69. It has also been submitted that the applicants are ready to abide by all the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. The applicants are permanent resident of Near Sai Mandir, Torwa, Bilaspur and there are no chance of their absconding, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

On the other hand, Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that investigation is going on and from perusal of the impugned FIR, it cannot be said that no ingredients of 420 of IPC is made out, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

Mr. Piyush Gangwani, son of the complainant Meena Gangwani, 8 appearing in person, vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the applicants and submitted that knowingly that there was a dispute in relation to the possession of the land in question between the erstwhile owner of the disputed land, namely, Ashok Ubrani and his father late Ramchand Gangwani, the present applicants have purchased the said land in the names of their respective spouses and after death of his father, the accused persons /present applicants, who are running business of land mafia, have started creating dispute with the whole family members and the applicants by concealing the material fact that there was a civil litigation going on between the erstwhile owner of the disputed land, namely, Ashok Kumar Ubrani and his father, namely, late Ramchand Gangwani in relation to the possession of the land in question and after selling the lands to the spouses of the present applicants, erstwhile owner Ashok Kumar Ubrani has filed a Civil Suit bearing Civil Suit No. 06A/10 under Order 7 Rule 11A of CPC before the competent Civil Court and the said Civil Suit came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2010, against which, erstwhile owner Ashok Kumar Ubrani has preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 03A/11 before the competent Appellate Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated

28.04.2011, against which Second Appeal bearing SA No. 230/2011 was also filed by the erstwhile owner Ashok Kumar Ubrani before this Court, which was also dismissed vide order 9 dated 23.09.2011, Dularam Motwari/ applicant No.1 herein filed application for demarcation by preparing forged documents before the concerned learned Tahsildar by making forged signature of his mother i.e., the complainant and suppressing the aforesaid actual fact had obtained the order dated 20.05.2022 in his favour and thereafter, accused Dularam Motwani has filed application under section 250 of C.G. Land Revenue Code for possession upon the subject land of the complainant and thereafter, during pendency of such application, all accused persons have forcefully and illegally damaged the boundary wall of the subject land without any permission and when the complainant came to knowledge about the said order dated 20.05.2022, then she filed revision before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh under section 50 of C.G. Land Revenue Code against the order dated 20.05.2022 in which the learned Additional Collector has found that the subject land is ancestor property of the complainant and she has peacefully in possession and recorded her name in the revenue record over the subject land and accused person has prepared forged documents and constituted application for demarcation in the name of complainant by forged signature of the complainant without giving any knowledge in absence of the complainant which is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law, therefore the learned Additional Collector has allowed the revision petition of the complainant vide its order dated 06.02.2025. Thereafter, the concerned police authorities have found that the 10 accused persons have prepared forged documents in the name of signature of the complainant and prepared demarcation report and hence registered offence under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicants as Crime No. 149/2025.

Mr. Gangwani further submitted that there are two criminal cases pending against the applicants at the instance of the complainant, firstly, when the present accused persons have kidnapped him and her mother, the complainant from near Multipurpose School Dayalband Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur and committed marpeet with him at Dayalband Office of Rishabh Panikar, Bilaspur and hence concerned police station City Kotwali Bilaspur has registered the offence under section 294, 323, 34, 341, 342, 363, 365, 386, 506 of the I.P.C. in crime No. 425/2022 against the present accused persons. Copy of FIR dated 02.11.2022 is filed herewith as Annexure Obj-C. Secondly, when the present accused persons have forcefully pressurized them at their house to withdraw the above case crime No. 425/2022 and when they refused to withdraw their case, then the accused Narendra Motwani has used filthy language and threatened to commit their murder from Bihari Shutter person and also to involve in a false criminal case and hence concerned police station Torwa Bilaspur has registered the offence under section 294, 506 of the I.P.C. in crime No. 606/2022 against the present accused Narendra Motwani. Copy of FIR dated 24.12.2022 is filed herewith as Annexure Obj-D.

Mr. Gangwani contended that against the present applicant, one 11 similar nature of offence has also been registered at the instance on some other person, namely, Ajay Singh when they have committed fraud and cheating and committed embezzlement amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- with him in his name of finance loan and hence concerned police station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh has registered the offence under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of the I.P.C. in crime No. 916/2022 against the present accused persons. However, said case has been quashed on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.

Mr. Gangwani further contended that after he becoming major, complainants Abhay Singh Rathore and D. Bhaskar Rao have registered FIRs at one police station Tarbahar, against the unknown persons in which only on the basis of memorandum statements and panchnama, he has falsely been implicated in connection of above two FIR, against which he has filed Cr.M.P. No.1207/2024 and 1247/2024 before this Court in which this Hon'ble Court has granted stay the further proceeding of such crimes. Copy of stay orders are being filed herewith collectively as Annexure Obj-E. He also contended that the present accused persons have acted in criminal nature and are habitual offenders and they are continuously harassing, mentally torturing and threatening to kill them due to which, their life is not safe and also he is a student of 12th class and is facing very difficulties to his study.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case 12 diary.

Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence and material available on record in the case diary and further considering the fact that the applicants knowing that Civil Suit, Civil Appeal as well as Second Appeal filed by the erstwhile owner of the land questions have already been dismissed and concealing the said fact, applicant No.1/Dularam Motwani has instituted the proceedings in the name of Meena Gangwani by making her forged signature made an application for demarcation of the land on 10.03.2022 and obtained the order dated

20.05.2022 in his favour and thereafter, accused Dularam Motwani has filed application under section 250 of C.G. Land Revenue Code for possession upon the subject land of the complainant and thereafter, during pendency of such application, all accused persons have forcefully and illegally damaged the boundary wall of the subject land without any permission and when the complainant came to knowledge about the said order dated 20.05.2022, then she filed revision before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh under section 50 of C.G. Land Revenue Code against the order dated 20.05.2022 in which the learned Additional Collector has found that the subject land is ancestor property of the complainant and she has peacefully in possession and recorded her name in the revenue record over the subject land and accused person has prepared forged documents 13 and constituted application for demarcation in the name of complainant by forged signature of the complainant without giving any knowledge in absence of the complainant which is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law, therefore the learned Additional Collector has allowed the revision petition of the complainant vide its order dated 06.02.2025 and also considering that two criminal cases are already pending against the present applicants, which were registered at the instance of the complainant and further that the accused/applicants are implicating the complainant and her son in false cases, in which this Court has already stayed the further proceedings of the said cases, as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants– Dularam Motwani, Narendra, Mahendra, Rajendra, filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No. 149/2025, registered at Police Station–Torwa, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Chandra