Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.12 10:57:39 +0530 2025:CGHC:46466-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1147 of 2022 Abhishek Kumar Verma S/o Ajay Prasad, Aged About 38 Years R/o Plot No. 2, Pink Lane, Maitrikunj, Rasali, Police Station Nevai, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Dulaurin Bai W/o Late Dhaluram Sahu, Aged About 68 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Ruabandha, Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 11.09. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for 2 the State/respondent No.1 as well as Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and further be pleased to quash the impugned First Information Report bearing Crime No. 238/2022 registered at Police Station, Utai, District-Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 294, 506(B), 323, 341, 201 of IPC, against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner herein has purchased the land bearing Khasra Nos. 339 and 335/1 admeasuring 6.08 hectares from Dulaurin Bai, Savitri Bai and Renu Bai by virtue of a registered sale deed executed on 16.08.2017. Prior to execution of the said sale deed, the petitioner had issued a public notice in the daily newspaper on 23.07.2017 inviting objections, if any. No objection having been raised, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. The entire sale consideration was paid through cheque, which stood duly encashed, as reflected in the petitioner’s bank statement. The 3 witnesses to the execution were Ajay Vishwakarma and Deepak Kumar Sahu. Subsequently, a complaint was lodged by Dulaurin Bai alleging that the sale deed dated 16.08.2017 was not executed by her but by some other person impersonating her. On the basis of this allegation, she submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Durg. Despite the said written complaint, no FIR was registered by the Police. Consequently, on 17.06.2019, the complainant preferred an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court of JMFC, Durg. The learned Magistrate, after considering the statements and preliminary material as well as the police report, vide order dated 16.03.2022, dismissed the said application holding that registration of FIR was not necessary in the facts of the case. 4. Thereafter, suppressing the fact of dismissal of her earlier application, the complainant filed a fresh application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before a different Presiding Officer of the same Court. On the basis of such application, the learned JMFC, Durg, by order dated 10.06.2022, directed registration of offence in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.. Pursuant thereto, FIR bearing Crime No. 238/2022 came to be registered at Police Station, Utai on 18.06.2022. The impugned FIR, having been registered on the basis of a second application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed after rejection of the first on merits, is wholly unsustainable in law. The complainant’s conduct amounts to bench hunting and abuse 4 of process of Court, inasmuch as the proper remedy after dismissal of the first application was to approach the revisional Court, as has been categorically laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Rajendra Chawla v. Chandra Prakash Chhabra (2019 SCC OnLine Chhattisgarh 4). 5. It is pertinent to mention that even the petitioner had earlier, on 16.08.2018, made a complaint before Police Station, Utai regarding alleged forgery in relation to the sale deed. Further, the complainant (respondent No. 2) has already instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of the sale deed dated 16.08.2017 as null and void, which is presently pending adjudication before the competent civil Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR is wholly unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed for the following reasons: • Earlier respondent No. 2 had filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Court of JMFC, Durg, and after recording the statements of the complainant and her witnesses, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 16.03.2022, dismissed the said application. The said order has never been challenged or assailed by respondent No. 2 before any superior Court and, therefore, has attained finality. • Without disclosing the fact regarding rejection of the 5 earlier application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., respondent No. 2 subsequently filed a second application on the same set of facts and similar allegations before a different Presiding Officer of the same Court. Such a course of action has been expressly deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hira Lal & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2009) 11 SCC 89, wherein it has been held that successive applications on identical grounds are not maintainable. • The second application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was not maintainable in law, and the order obtained thereon by suppressing material facts amounts to fraud upon the Court. Consequently, the FIR registered pursuant to such order is also vitiated. • This Hon’ble Court in Rajendra Chawla v. Chandra Prakash Chhabra, 2019 SCC OnLine Chhattisgarh 4, has laid down that once an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed, the only remedy available is to prefer a revision petition before the competent Court. It has further been held that before passing any adverse order, the revisional Court is mandated to afford an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. In the present case, respondent No. 2 bypassed this settled legal position and indulged in forum 6 shopping, which is impermissible in law. • The FIR itself records that it was registered solely on the basis of the Magistrate’s order dated 10.06.2022. Since the very order is vitiated, the consequential FIR cannot be sustained. • Once the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had been dismissed on merits, respondent No. 2 could not, without obtaining leave of a higher Court, file a second application before another Magistrate. Such practice amounts to bench hunting and has been strongly deprecated by the Courts. • The petitioner himself had earlier lodged a complaint regarding the alleged impersonation and execution of forged sale deed before Police Station, Utai, on 16.08.2018, which clearly demonstrates his bona fides. • Apart from criminal proceedings, respondent No. 2 has already instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of the sale deed dated 16.08.2017 as null and void, which is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court. Thus, parallel criminal proceedings on the same set of allegations are nothing but abuse of process of law. • Even if the entire set of allegations made in the complaint is accepted at its face value, the role attributed is that some co-owner allegedly impersonated respondent No. 2 7 and executed the sale deed. The petitioner, being a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, has neither committed any fraud nor indulged in any cheating. Hence, no prima facie offence is made out against him. In view of the above facts and settled legal principles, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed as continuation of the same would amount to abuse of process of law and unnecessary harassment of the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons: • The police authorities have registered the impugned FIR on the basis of the complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2, namely Dularin Bai, pursuant to the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In compliance with the said order, FIR dated 18.06.2022 under Sections 420/34 IPC was registered, and the investigation was set into motion. • The FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 294, 506-B, 323, 341 and 201 IPC against the present petitioner. The matter is still under investigation and the statements of 8 material witnesses are yet to be recorded. A final report/charge-sheet will be filed upon completion of the investigation. • It is well settled that the purpose of FIR is only to set the criminal law into motion. An FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all the relevant facts and details. As investigation progresses, the hazy picture presented by the FIR becomes clearer, and the role of the accused, if any, is revealed. To nip the FIR in the bud at this preliminary stage, before the real facts are unearthed during investigation, would result in grave miscarriage of justice. • The FIR in the present case has been registered in compliance with a judicial order passed by the learned JMFC, Durg, in judicial capacity, and thereafter a fair, impartial and transparent investigation has been carried out. The investigating agency is not influenced by the status or position of any party, and the matter is being examined strictly in accordance with law. • The petitioner has sufficient remedies available during the course of trial to raise all permissible defences. After filing of the final report and framing of charges, the petitioner will have ample opportunity to contest the case before the trial Court. Therefore, at this initial stage, when the 9 investigation is still pending, the present petition is premature and not maintainable. • It is the settled proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise based upon adequate evidence, does not stand vitiated merely because the complainant may have acted with mala fide intentions. Allegations of malice or oblique motive on the part of the complainant cannot be a ground to discard the FIR itself, which must be tested after collection of evidence during investigation. • In the present case, the answering respondents had no option but to lodge the FIR in compliance with the order of the learned JMFC, Durg. The FIR, therefore, is neither false nor lodged with a view to harass the petitioner, but has been duly registered in accordance with law. • Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 180, wherein it has been categorically held that ordinarily Courts should not interfere with or stifle investigation at the FIR stage and that quashing of FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition seeking quashing of FIR is wholly frivolous, premature and devoid of merit, and is liable to be dismissed. 10 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the present petition is not maintainable on the following reasons: • The present petitioner has sought quashment of FIR bearing No. 238/2022 registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 294, 506-B, 323, 341 and 201 IPC. However, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 10.06.2022 passed in Case No. F-6114/2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, on the basis of which the impugned FIR came to be registered. Therefore, in absence of a challenge to the said judicial order, the present petition is not maintainable. • It is the case of the answering respondent that the petitioner, along with other co-accused persons, including co-owners of the subject land, executed a registered sale deed by impersonating the complainant (Respondent No. 2) and her daughter. • The answering respondent is a joint owner of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 335/1 and 339, area 0.21 and 0.47 hectares respectively, situated at Village Khapoli, P.H. No. 43, R.I.C. – Anda, Tehsil and District – Durg (C.G.), which is agricultural land. Other co-owners include the daughter of the complainant, namely Renu Bai, as well as Savitri Bai (second wife of the complainant’s deceased husband 11 Dhaluram) and her minor children. A copy of the relevant land record is filed herewith as Annexure R-2/1. • The petitioner executed a registered sale deed dated 16.08.2017 wherein some other persons were made to impersonate the complainant and her daughter. Forged Aadhaar cards were placed on record at the time of execution of the sale deed, and impersonators executed the sale deed fraudulently. A copy of the impugned forged sale deed is filed as Annexure R-2/2. • The answering respondent had earlier filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by the learned JMFC, Durg vide order dated 16.03.2022 on the ground that no document was placed to show that the signatures on the sale deed were forged. However, the second application was entertained by the learned Magistrate after perusal of the contents of the complaint case and finding sufficient ground to direct registration of FIR. • Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876, as reiterated in Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru, (2010) 2 SCC 631 and V. Rash Kumar v. State, (2019) 14 SCC 568, wherein it has been held that dismissal of a complaint is no absolute bar 12 to filing of a second complaint on the same facts, provided there exist exceptional circumstances, such as incomplete record, misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, or where new facts have come to light. • In the present case, the earlier order dated 16.03.2022 was manifestly unjust and absurd, as despite the complainant having categorically alleged impersonation, the Court insisted on production of proof of forged signatures, overlooking the fact that the grievance itself was of physical impersonation. The forged Aadhaar cards of the complainant and her daughter, annexed as Annexure R-2/3, prima facie establish the offence. • The answering respondent had also filed a civil suit for declaration of the sale deed as null and void. The said suit was dismissed on 26.04.2022 on the ground of limitation and defective prayer. However, an appeal bearing RCA/147/2024 is pending before the 3rd District and Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.). A copy of the judgment dated 26.04.2022 along with case status is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2/4. • A bare perusal of the impugned sale deed, when compared with the genuine Aadhaar cards of the complainant and her daughter, prima facie demonstrates impersonation and commission of cognizable offences. 13 In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the present petition filed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit and an attempt to stall investigation. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. In the case at hand, it is an admitted position that the first application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by Respondent No. 2 was dismissed on merits by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, vide order dated 16.03.2022. The said order was never challenged in revision before a competent Court and has thus attained finality. 11. Suppressing this fact, Respondent No. 2 proceeded to file a second application on the same set of allegations, which resulted in the order dated 10.06.2022 directing registration of the FIR. Such a practice of filing successive complaints, without disclosing the earlier dismissal, amounts to abuse of the judicial process and cannot be permitted. 12. Further, it is also a matter of record that Respondent No. 2 had instituted a civil suit seeking declaration that the registered sale deed dated 16.08.2017 is null and void on the ground of impersonation and forgery. The said civil suit came to be dismissed on 26.04.2022 on grounds of limitation and defective 14 prayer. Though an appeal is stated to be pending, the dismissal of the civil suit reinforces the fact that the dispute raised is predominantly of civil nature concerning title and validity of a registered document. Criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a shortcut for resolving civil disputes or exerting pressure upon the opposite party. 13. The allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, essentially relate to the question of validity of the sale deed and alleged impersonation at the time of its execution. These matters are to be adjudicated in appropriate civil proceedings based on evidence, and do not, in the considered view of this Court, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 294, 506-B, 323, 341 and 201 of the IPC. Permitting such criminal prosecution to continue would amount to subjecting the petitioner to needless harassment and would be an abuse of process of law. 14. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 238/2022 registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 294, 506-B, 323, 341 and 201 of IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, stands quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu