Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Dalbeer Kaur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 666 of 2026
Smt. Dalbeer Kaur W/o Surendra Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Dr.
Rajendra Prasad, Murum Mine, Farid Nagar Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Supela, Chowki
Smriti Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Sohendra Kaur W/o Late Mohan Singh Aged About 90 Years
R/o 118, Kripal Nagar Kohka Road, Kohka Bhilai, Tehsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date:
2026.03.10 18:32:58 +0530 2 Order Sheet 10/03/2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the prosecution story, on 23.08.2025 Police Station Smriti Nagar received information in Crime No. 0/2025 under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. It is alleged that the complainant is an old-aged lady who owns land bearing Khasra Nos. 31, 32 and 35, Rakba 05.50 acres, situated at Village Kohka, P.H. No. 45. It is further alleged that, in respect of Khasra No. 31, the present petitioner, through a power of attorney, sold the land to Vishal Nexa Tizen Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Sanjeev Kumar Singh and, in conspiracy, executed the registry by committing forgery. On the basis of the written complaint, the police registered the case, which was 3 subsequently transferred to the concerned police station and registered as FIR No. 0992/2025 dated 23.08.2025 for the offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner appeared before the police authorities and stated that on 27.06.2025 she had obtained the power of attorney in respect of the said land. Owing to financial need, the owner had agreed to sell the property. The proprietor of Vishal Nexa Tizen Construction Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Sanjeev Kumar Singh, issued cheques towards the sale consideration and thereafter the transaction was duly completed through a registered sale deed before the competent Sub-Registrar. He further contended that the son of the complainant, due to greed and ulterior motives, has instigated the filing of the present complaint and a false case has been lodged against the petitioner. In fact, the power of attorney for selling the land was executed in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Durg, wherein the complainant herself 4 appeared along with two witnesses and voluntarily executed and registered the power of attorney as well as the subsequent sale transaction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that, as per the FIR itself, co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Singh purchased the land from Sohendra Kaur on 01.06.2025, whereas the power of attorney had already been executed earlier on 05.06.2024. Despite the lapse of nearly one year, no complaint was ever made by the complainant alleging that the power of attorney had been obtained forcibly or fraudulently. No public notice, paper publication, or legal notice for cancellation of the power of attorney was issued by the complainant, which clearly indicates that the said power of attorney continued to remain valid and subsisting. He further submitted that at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, the complainant herself appeared before the office of the Sub-Registrar and the land was duly registered in the name of co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Singh, proprietor of Vishal Nexa Tizen Construction Pvt. Ltd., after following due legal 5 procedure. It is contended that the entire dispute, if any, is purely of civil nature relating to a property transaction. However, the police authorities have unnecessarily implicated the petitioner in the present case and falsely made her an accused, even though she has no nexus with the alleged offence.
Learned counsel further prays that the matter be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, as there remains a possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties.
It is further contended that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the learned trial Court on 29.11.2025 and the learned trial Court has already taken cognizance. Vide order dated 03.02.2026, charges have been framed against the petitioner.
Considering the fact that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, who are family members, this Court deems it appropriate to make an endeavour to resolve the matter through mediation.
Accordingly, the parties are directed to remain 6 present before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 02.04.2026.
The learned State counsel is directed to inform respondent No. 2 of this order to enable her appearance before the Mediation Centre on the aforesaid date.
List this matter along with the report of the Mediation Centre on 07.04.2026.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. RCC 37672/2025 shall remain stayed against the petitioner.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan