Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 995 of 2018 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1. Jahan Mohammed S/o Late Yatim Mohammed Aged About 25 Years R/o- Village Chorbhatti Khurd Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Fariyad Bee @ Sahjadi Begum W/o Majid Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chorbhatti Khurd, P. S. Chakarbhatha, Tahsil Takhatpur, District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Dilijan Mohammad @ Bagulla S/o Yatim Mohammad @ Jan Mohammad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chorbhatti Khurd, P. S. Chakarbhatha, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4. Ramjan Bee W/o Late Yatim Mohammad @ Jan Mohammad Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chorbhatti Khurd, P. S. Chakarbhatha, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Jafar Mohammed S/o Jaha Mohammed Aged About 59 Years R/o- Madhyanagari Chowk, In Front Of Dr. Rai Banglow Masanganj, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur. ---- Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioners For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate. Mr. Ahmad Husain, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the petition of the petitioner and set- aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2018 in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur against the petitioners and 12 others stating that his father Late Jan Mohammed was recorded owner of land bearing Kh. No. 1561/1, 1562/2, 1863/1 total area 2.52 acres situated in village Chorbhatti Kala, PC No. 28/50, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. After the death of his father those lands were recorded in his name by order No. 25 dated 12.02.1992. Thereafter the respondent/ complainant was jointly possessing the land with his mother Late Jinnat Bee and elder sister Sahajadi Begum till 25.07.2015 his name was recorded in the revenue records. It was further stated in the complaint that in addition to the above land Kh. No. 1544/3 area 0.53 acre village Chorbhatti Kala, PC No. 28/50, Tahsil 3 Takhatpur, District Bilaspur was owned and possessed by her elder sister Late Shajadi Begum to which she has purchased by registered sale deed 15.02.1989. Shahajadi Begum died on 24.01.2004 and her mother Jinnat Bee died on 10.04.2004. The complainant was working in SECL Chirmiri for the last 15 years and used to come in intervals to his house situated in Masanganj and used to look after the properties. In the month of June-July, when the complainant/respondent went to village Chorbhatti Kala it came to his knowledge through Adhiyadars Firant Yadav, Ghisal Yadav and Gentu Ram that his ancestral property land bearing Kh. No. 1561/1, 1562/2, 1863/1 total area 2.52 acres situated in village Chorbhatti Kala, PC No. 28/50, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur has been recorded in the name of Amzad Khan S/o Shafi Shah @ Shafi Mohammed it further came to his knowledge that the land Kh. No. 1544/3 area 0.53 acre village Chorbhatti Kala, PC No. 28/50, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur has also been purchased by Amzad Khan S/o Shafi Shah @ Shafi Mohammed. It further came to his knowledge that Amzad and Anwar came to the Adhiyadars stating and prohibited them to cultivate the above mentioned land on the ground that they have purchased the same. After getting the above information from the Adhiyadars, the complainant / respondent went to Tahsil Office Takhatpur and when got the certified copy of revenue records of above mentioned lands it came to his knowledge that the above mentioned land was recorded in the name of Jafar Mohammed, 4 Jinat and Shahajadi Begum thereafter, the complainant went to Patwari Office Ganiyari were it came to his knowledge that the above mentioned lands have been sold by accused No. 1 to 4 to accused no. 5 by registered sale deed in the year 2011-12. It was further stated in the complaint that the accused No. 1 to 4 conspired and sold the same to respondent No. 5 after his incident the complainant filed complaint to the Police Authorities but when no action was taken, he filed the complaint case before the Court below. 3. After filling of the complaint by the respondent, the same was sent to Office-In-Charge Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur for submitting the inquiry report. The Office-In-Charge Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur conducted inquiry and recorded statements of complainant, Jahan Mohammed (petitioner), Diljan Mohammed, Ramzan Bee, Fariyad Bee, Amzad Khan, Anwar Khan, Komal Prasad, Amrit Lal Kaushik, Gendu Ram Yadav, Firant Yadav, Ghasiya Ram Yadav, Smt. Kamla Yadav, Rohit Prasad Sahu, Ramesh Yadav, Smt. Roopali Bose, Mathura Prasad Soni and Santosh Shrivas. After conducting the inquiry, the Office-In- Charge Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur submitted report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur on 03.03.2016. In the statement, the accused No. 1 (petitioner), his sister Fariyad Bee, Diljan Mohammed, Ramzan Bee stated that the lands which has been sold by them is their ancestral property and after the death of their father Jan Mohammed @ Yatim Mohammed the same has 5 been recorded in their names and the same has been sold to the accused No. 5. The statement of complainant/respondent and his witness was recorded before the registration by Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur. 4. After recording of evidence before registration of offence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant / respondent. It was stated in the order that after going through the evidence, documents filed by complainant and the Police Inquiry Report, it is proved that the property to which the complainant has stated to be of his ancestral property and her deceased sister Shahajadi Begum have been stated to be the ancestral property of accused no. 1 to 4 and it was further stated that the mother of complainant is the second wife of Jan Mohammed, the father of petitioner. 5. Against the above order, the respondent preferred revision before the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 81/2017 and after hearing the parties the order was passed on 17.08.2017 that after making further inquiry in the case the appropriate order be passed. After the above order of the Sessions Judge Bilaspur, on 30.08.2017 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without making any further inquiry and only after hearing the arguments passed the order dated 15.09.2017 for registration of offence against the petitioner. Against the above order dated 15.09.2017, the petitioner filed revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur which was registered 6 as Criminal Revision No. 215/2017. The respondent also filed revision against the order dated 15.09.2017 for registration of offence against all the accused persons arrayed in the complaint case, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 229/2017. Both the revisions were arising of same order, therefore both were heard at the same time and a common order was passed on 12.03.2018. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed while the revision filed by respondent was partly allowed and directed registration of offence against accused No. 1 to 4. Hence this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur (C.G.) is bad in law and on facts. While deciding the revision, 1st Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur (C.G.) has not taken into consideration that the case is a civil dispute for which civil remedy is available in the law of the land and the same has been observed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in its order dated 27.03.2017. While deciding the revision, 1st Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur (C.G.) has not taken into consideration that the father of complainant / respondent and the petitioner are the same persons and the mother complainant / respondent is the step mother of the petitioner. He further submits that while deciding the revision, 1st Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur has not taken into consideration that after passing the order in Criminal Revision No. 81/2017, the learned trial Court did not make any further inquiry 7 and the order for registration of offence has been passed by the trial Court and the statements recorded by the Officer-In-Charge Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, it is clear that the matter is a civil dispute which is being given the colour of criminal case by the respondent. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, would support the impugned order and submits that in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that after fully applying its mind the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 215/2017, which warrants no interference by this Court. In the present case, charges have been framed and evidence is being recorded and there appears to be no interim order passed by this Court. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the revisional Court 8 has not committed any illegality, infirmity or any jurisdictional error while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners. 11.Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal