Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Sitaram Agrawal Aged About 47 Years R/o- Rishabh Complex v. 1. Ramcharan Sahu S/o Dasru Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o- Pragati Nagar, Near
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:3697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 992 of 2018 Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Sitaram Agrawal Aged About 47 Years R/o- Rishabh Complex, M.G. Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Ramcharan Sahu S/o Dasru Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o- Pragati Nagar, Near Bajrang Mandir, Mowa, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
annexed to the petition makes it clear that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property in which the Khasra number has been wrongly written by the sellers and when it came into the knowledge, it has been corrected on the behest of the sellers and not by the petitioner. There is no any proof to show that the petitioner is in any way involved in either execution of forged documents or tampered with the government documents. Whatever allegations have been levelled, the same would be against the earlier purchasers of the land who have purchased the 5 property from the forefathers of the complainant. The dispute relates to a pure civil dispute, however, even though it does not relate to the petitioner and further in order to pressurize the petitioner and to settle civil dispute through criminal case, complaint has been lodged against the petitioner by leaving other related parties of the same transaction, which is liable to be quashed. The institution of criminal complaint is nothing but an attempt to avoid payment of Court fees and adjudication of the civil dispute by the competent civil Court. Further, the dispute raised by the complainant is also barred by limitation under the civil law, the petitioner has raised the aforesaid point before the revisional court, however, it has not been considered and the revision has been dismissed. Since, the order impugned passed by the Courts below is apparently bad in law, and the complaint itself is not maintainable against the petitioner, who is the bonafide purchaser of the property and has not committed any act of forgery, hence this petition for quashment of the complaint and criminal proceedings initiated against the same. 5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.5/State as well as learned counsel for the complainant would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned 6 trial Court has prima facie found a case for trial against the revisionist for offences under Sections 485, 467, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, based on the documents presented in the case and the evidence of the initial witnesses. At this stage, sufficient oral and documentary evidence was available to register a case against the revisionist. The grounds taken by the revisionist in the revision may be part of their defence, but the impugned order cannot be considered unjustified or unlawful on these grounds. After fully applying its mind the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge Raipur (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 30/2015, which warrants no interference by this Court. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 has not committed any illegality, infirmity or any jurisdictional error while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
2. Smt. Alyan Begum W/o Late Shamsuddin Aged About 80 Years D/o Najir Mohammad R/o- Bayron Bazar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Shahabuddin S/o Late Shamsuddin Aged About 29 Years R/o- Byron Bazar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Abdul Habeeb S/o Gulam Anwar Aged About 46 Years R/o- Mohadapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. The State Of Chhattisgarh. Through- P.S. Gol Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. For Petitioner For Respondent Nos.1 For Respondent No.5/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. : Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate. ... Respondent(s) Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21/01/2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Manish Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Bharat Gulbani, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.5/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayers:- “(a) Call for the records of the Courts below. (b) That, the complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed. (c) That, the order dated 27.03.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 529 of 2017 by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, may kindly be set- aside. (d) That the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners bearing Criminal Case No. 2783 of 2017 pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur for the offence punishable under the Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, may kindly be quashed.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that it was alleged in the complaint that land bearing Khasra No. 829/1, area 0.226 hectare situated at village Mowa, PC No. 109, Revenue Circle Raipur 1, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, belongs to the land of the complainant and their forefathers namely Dukalu Sahu, Sukalu Sahu, Vishal, Hiralal, Shyamlal, Dashru, Dashrath and Shyam Bai. The said 3 land was never been sold by the said persons during their lifetime neither they have authorized any person for sale of the said land. They are in possession of the said land. On 07.04.2012, the complainant came to know that M/s. Sampada Realities, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, has mutated their name in the aforesaid land. It was further came into the knowledge of the complainant that the Respondent No. 2 herein has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the Respondent No. 3 who has sold a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 814 area 0.093 hectares vide registered sale deed dated 03.04.2001 for a consideration of Rs. 85,100/- and thereafter, all the accused persons in connivance have got a correction deed and in place of Khasra No. 814/1, they have corrected it as Khasra No. 829/1. The purchaser i.e. the petitioner has got his name mutated in the revenue records and has further sold the said land to the Sampada Realities and in this way, forgery of valuable security for the purpose of cheating while using the said document to be a genuine, has been committed by the accused persons including the petitioner, therefore, offence as stated above be registered against them and they may be punished accordingly. On the basis of complaint, evidence recorded by the complainant and the complainant's witnesses, the JMFC Raipur, vide its order dated 11.09.2017 has held that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons including the petitioner, and accordingly summons have been issued for their presence. Since the issuance of summons against 4 the petitioner is not in accordance with law, therefore, he has challenged the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the JMFC, Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 2783 / 2017 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in a revision petition whereby the said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2018, passed in Criminal Revision No.529/2017, while holding that the JMFC, Raipur, has rightly passed the order on the basis of prima facie evidence against the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint against the petitioner. The forefathers of the complainant have already sold the land in question and the entire property has been sold to other persons and the petitioner is no where connected with those persons. No vacant land exists in possession of the complainant which may give rise to him to file any complaint, whatsoever. The documents