Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37217-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1770 of 2023 1. Naresh Kumar Dhiwar S/o Shri Silhau Ram Dhiwar Aged About 33 Years Residents Of Village Baroda, Police Station Vidhaan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Bhagwat Sahu S/o Tulsiram Sahu Aged About 42 Years Residents Of Village Baroda, Police Station Vidhaan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Purushottam Dhiwar S/o Shivcharan Dhiwar Aged About 22 Years Residents Of Village Baroda, Police Station Vidhaan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4.
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Sangeeta Dhiwar W/o Shivcharan Dhiwar Aged About 44 Years Residents Of Village Baroda, Police Station Vidhaan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Dageshwar Dhiwar S/o Shivcharan Dhiwar Aged About 24 Years Residents Of Village Baroda, Police Station Vidhaan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6. Smt. Dhaneshwari Dhiwar W/o Shri Naresh Kumar Dhiwar Aged About 30 Years Residents Of Village Baroda, Police Station Vidhaan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Vidhaan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Vinod Tiwari S/o Late Lalta Prasad Tiwari Aged About 43 Years Resident Of Vidhaan Sabha Road, Mova, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.30 18:47:45 +0530 2 For Petitioners For Respondent/State For Respondent No. 2 : : : Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocates. Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter, quash FIR No. 187 of 2022 dated 20.04.2022, charge-sheet No. 186 of 2022 dated 22.06.2022 (Annexure P/1) and entire proceedings of criminal case pending before the learned trial Court concerned, being violative of petitioners’ fundamental and constitutional rights granted under the Constitution of India and amounting to abuse of process of Court and 3 abuse of process of law in the facts and circumstances of case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.2 filed a written report dated 30.12.2021 at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, alleging that on 20.04.2015, certain individuals, including Bhagwat Sahu and petitioner No.1 – Naresh Dhiwar, approached him claiming to be engaged in the business of sale and purchase of land. They informed the complainant that one Shivcharan Dhiwar (predecessor of the petitioners herein) was the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 301, admeasuring 1.193 hectares, and that he was willing to sell the said land due to financial necessity, further assuring that the property was free from encumbrances. On the said representation, an agreement dated 20.04.2015 was executed between the parties, pursuant to which respondent No.2 paid an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash. However, despite the agreement, the transaction was not concluded by Shivcharan Dhiwar, and prior to the execution of the sale deed, he passed away. Subsequently, another agreement dated 07.09.2019 was entered into, allegedly acknowledging the earlier agreement, and the total sale consideration was revised to Rs. 4,20,00,000/-, reflecting an increase of Rs.10,00,000/-. Despite repeated demands by respondent No.2, the sale deed was not executed in his favour. Additionally, it was stated that a Joint Venture Agreement was earlier executed in 2012 with one Shri Swarn Pal Singh Chawla, which also did not materialize as allegedly agreed. In light of these circumstances, respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioners have conspired to cheat him and thus sought registration of an offence through the complaint dated 30.12.2021. Acting upon the said complaint, an FIR bearing No. 187/22 was registered on 21.04.2022. Most of the petitioners were arrested on 06.05.2022, with one arrest made on 17.05.2022; all were later released on bail. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that even on the face of it, the allegations do not prima facie disclose any offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is submitted that the petitioners have been implicated without following the procedure established by law. Furthermore, the petitioners’ fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed due to their arrest under the aforementioned provisions. He also submits that for an offence under Section 420 of the IPC to be made out, the essential ingredients under Section 415 of the IPC must be satisfied. In the present case, the documents annexed clearly demonstrate that the alleged agreement was entered into on 20.04.2015 between one Shiv Charan Dhiwar (predecessor of the petitioners) and the complainant, under which an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was purportedly paid in cash. The very nature of this transaction raises serious doubts, as the complaint states that certain individuals came to the complainant's premises and, on the same day, executed an agreement on stamp paper involving such a large sum paid in cash. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no prudent person would pay such a substantial amount in cash and remain silent for an extended period. It appears that the complainant, with a pre- existing intent to defraud, compelled the said Shiv Charan Dhiwar to sign the agreement. Be that as it may, the total consideration mentioned was Rs. 4,00,20,000/-, and during the validity of the agreement, no effort was made to execute or register a sale deed. Shiv Charan Dhiwar passed away on 16.09.2016. The complainant’s version that the petitioners later approached him on 07.09.2019 to sell the property at a higher price lacks credibility. He 5 further states that the petitioners deny having ever agreed to sell the ancestral property. It is rather the complainant who repeatedly attempted to coerce the petitioners into entering into further agreements. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on one such occasion, petitioner No. 1 and Bhagwat Sahu were summoned by Ashwani Rathore, SHO, and upon reaching the police station, their mobile phones were allegedly seized. Thereafter, they and their family members were subjected to coercion and pressure to execute a sale deed in favour of the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant visited the petitioners' premises with 8–10 individuals and attempted to force them to acknowledge the earlier unenforceable agreement. The petitioners were summoned multiple times to the Police Station and were allegedly threatened with false implication in criminal cases. The complainant is also reported to have stated that he is well connected with high-ranking ofÏcials in the State and would ensure their arrest through misuse of the State machinery. Under such duress, the petitioners were compelled to sign agreements despite having no intention to sell the property. Nonetheless, the petitioners have expressed willingness to return the sum of Rs. 40,00,000/-, allegedly paid to their predecessor. The facts stated above have been duly reported to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, as well as to the Ministries of Home and Agriculture on 09.02.2022. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged agreement dated 20.04.2015, even if presumed to exist, cannot be enforced through police intervention. It is for the complainant to substantiate the alleged payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- as advance consideration. The complainant, having failed to establish such payment or avail appropriate civil remedies during the lifetime of the alleged executant, Shri Shiv Charan Dhiwar, has now resorted to criminal proceedings to exert undue pressure on the 6 petitioners. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 appears to have an ulterior motive to grab the petitioners’ valuable ancestral property. The petitioners having declined to sell the same, the respondent No. 2, in collusion with certain police ofÏcials, has misused the process of law by lodging a false and concocted FIR. On several occasions, police personnel have visited the petitioners’ residence and summoned them to the police station, where they were threatened with false implication and arrest unless they agreed to execute sale agreements. Under such coercive circumstances, the petitioners were compelled to sign agreements against their will. However, the petitioners have already brought these true and correct facts to the knowledge of the concerned authorities. Despite this, instead of taking appropriate action against respondent No. 2 and erring police ofÏcials, the authorities have proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel also brings to the notice of this Court that respondent No. 2 has already instituted a civil suit, bearing Civil Suit No.83-A of 2022, before the learned trial Court, in which notices have been issued to the petitioners. This clearly indicates that the dispute is purely civil in nature, and by lodging the present FIR, respondent No. 2 has sought to give a civil dispute the colour of a criminal offence, which is impermissible in law. Hence, this petition. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. On a specific query, as to whether the respondent No. 2 has filed an return/reply to the petition filed by the petitioners, Mr. Paranjpe submits that 7 no such return/reply has been filed till date, though petition is pending since 2023. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 12. Upon a careful examination of the pleadings and the documents annexed to the petition, it is evident that respondent No. 2 has already instituted a civil suit, bearing Civil Suit No. 83-A of 2022, before the learned trial Court. Notices in that suit have been duly issued to the petitioners along with the plaint and the reply to the counter-claim. This clearly indicates that the dispute is of a purely civil nature. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR, charge-sheet, and the consequent criminal proceedings against the petitioners are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the charge-sheet bearing No. 186 of 2022 in Crime No. 187 of 2022, filed by the Police of Police Station, Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, and all consequential criminal proceedings pending before the concerned trial Court are hereby quashed. 14. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan