Chattisgarh High Court
Mohit Kerketta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11556-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 684 of 2026
1 - Mohit Kerketta S/o Late Budhram Kerketta, aged about 59 years R/o
Village Polmi, P.S. Pali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shankar Kerketta S/o Mohit Kerketta aged about 33 years R/o
Village Polmi, P.S. Pali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur,
Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Alok Vilson S/o Late C. Vilson, aged about 65 years R/o House No.
228/16, Deepupara, Vidya Nagar, P.S. Tarbahar, Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate
No.1/State
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
11.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as ROHIT Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR the State/respondent No.1.
CHANDRA2
2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayers :-
"I. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioners.
II. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing No. 458/2024, registered on 20.05.2024 at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh against petitioners, lodged on the instance of respondent No.2 against the petitioners herein namely Mohit Kerketta & Shankar Kerketta, for the offence punishable under Section 403, 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B of Indian Penal Code (Note:- Subsequently after filing of the charge sheet the charges have been framed under Section 403, 405, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of Indian Penal Code).
III. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet/final report hearing No. 534/2024 filed on dated 24.09.2024 before Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur for the offences punishable under Section 403, 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B of Indian Penal Code (Note:-
Subsequently after filing of the charge sheet the charges have been framed under Section 403, 405, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of Indian Penal Code).
IV. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of taking cognizance 3 dated 26.10.2024, passed in Criminal Case No. 10436/2024 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh v. Birim Sai Toppo & others, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur has taken cognizance of the impugned Chargesheet and registered the impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case No.10436/2024 against the petitioners and the entire criminal proceedings i.e. Criminal Case No. 10436/2024 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh v. Birim Sai Toppo & others, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur for the offence under section 403, 405, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of Indian Penal Code may also kindly be quashed, so far as it relates to the petitioners are concerned.
V. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the 9th Additional Session's Judge, where by the revision against framing of charge has been dismissed in Criminal Revision No. 214/2025, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to set-aside the order dated 17.10.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 10436/2024 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, whereby the charges under Section 403, 405, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of Indian Penal Code have been framed.
VI. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also granted to the Petitioners."
3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that Respondent No.2/complainant filed an application under 4 Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, claiming himself to be a member of the Church of Christ Mission in India. In the said application, it was alleged that the present petitioners had purchased land bearing Khasra No. 296/1 from the other co-accused persons and that the said land is the graveyard belonging to the Church of Christ Mission in India. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, vide order dated 18.04.2024, allowed the said application and directed the In-charge of the concerned Police Station to investigate the matter and submit a report. Pursuant to the said order passed in Application No. (Unregistered/2024), an F.I.R. was registered on 20.05.2024 in relation to the alleged incident.
4. In the F.I.R., it has been alleged, inter alia, that the complainant is a member of the Church of Christ Mission in India, Kududand, Bilaspur, which is a registered institution bearing Registration No. 11/53-54 and having its head office at Kududand, Bilaspur. It has further been alleged that the members of the said institution executed a registered sale deed dated 16.12.2021 in favour of the present petitioners in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 296/1, admeasuring 1 acre, for a consideration of Rs. 99,22,500/-. It has also been alleged that the said land forms part of the graveyard, which is enclosed by a boundary wall, and the land is recorded as "Isai Kabristan." It has further been alleged that in Civil Suit No. 22A/2013 the said land has been declared to be graveyard land. It 5 is also alleged that the land was sold for a meagre consideration, whereas the actual market value of the said land is more than Rs. 4 crores. According to the complainant, the members of the institution had no authority to sell the graveyard land.
5. After registration of the F.I.R., the police conducted an investigation into the matter and subsequently filed a charge sheet against the members of the institution as well as against the purchasers, including the present petitioners. ANNEXURE P/1 is the certified copy of the charge sheet along with the copy of the F.I.R. Thereafter, the learned trial Court took cognizance of the alleged offences and, vide order dated 17.10.2025, framed charges against the accused persons, including the present petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. ANNEXURE P/2 is the certified copy of the order taking cognizance dated 26.10.2024 along with the relevant order sheets.
6. The said order framing charges was challenged by the petitioners before the learned Sessions Court by way of a criminal revision; however, the learned Sessions Court, vide order dated 29.01.2026, dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
7. Being aggrieved by the order framing charges, the order passed by the revisional court, as well as the entire criminal proceedings, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. ANNEXURE 6 P/3 is the certified copy of the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the revisional court, ANNEXURE P/4 are the certified copies of the charge memos dated 17.10.2025, and ANNEXURE P/5 is the copy of the application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with the order dated 18.04.2024.
8. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, no offence is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers who purchased land bearing Khasra No. 296/1, admeasuring 1.00 acre, by way of a registered sale deed dated 16.12.2021 after paying substantial consideration and after obtaining the requisite permission from the Registrar. The said land has never been recorded as graveyard land in the revenue records, and the graveyard land is a separate parcel bearing Khasra No. 296/2. It is further submitted that the issue regarding the nature of the land had already been adjudicated by the competent civil court in Civil Suit No. 22A/2013 (judgment dated 09.08.2021) and Civil Suit No. 129A/2011 (judgment dated 03.11.2018). Despite being a party to the civil proceedings and having full knowledge of the said judgments, the complainant suppressed these material facts and initiated criminal proceedings by filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which resulted in the registration of the impugned F.I.R.
7
9. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged with an unexplained and inordinate delay, and the allegations made therein are contrary to the findings recorded by the competent civil court as well as the revenue records. The dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature and has been given a colour of criminality with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners. The charge sheet has been filed without proper investigation and without collecting any material to establish that the petitioners had purchased graveyard land or had committed any offence. Even if the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and charge sheet are taken to be true in their entirety, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code are completely absent.
10. Learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, further submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of U.P. , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947; Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 18 SCC 265; Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626; Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B. , (2023) 15 SCC 135; and Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan , (2005) 7 SCC 69, wherein it has been held that criminal proceedings arising out of essentially civil disputes and lacking the basic ingredients of the 8 alleged offences are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court. It is therefore submitted that the impugned F.I.R., the charge sheet, the order taking cognizance, and the entire criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
11. Per contra, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent No.1 opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners have failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. It is submitted that the F.I.R. was registered pursuant to an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thereafter the police conducted a detailed investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused persons, including the present petitioners. The learned trial Court, after considering the material available on record, has taken cognizance and framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, which order has also been affirmed by the revisional court. Thus, it cannot be said at this stage that the proceedings are without basis. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the material collected during investigation clearly disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. The question as to whether the land in question forms part of a graveyard, whether the members of the institution were competent to execute 9 the sale deed, and whether the petitioners had knowledge of the alleged illegality are all disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon after appreciation of evidence during trial. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, this Hon'ble Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate disputed facts. It is also submitted that merely because a civil dispute may also be involved would not by itself bar criminal proceedings where the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences. Since the charge sheet discloses sufficient material indicating the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the petitioners may raise all their defences before the trial court during the course of trial.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
13. The present petition has been filed seeking quashment of the F.I.R., the charge sheet, the order taking cognizance and the order framing charges passed by the learned trial court. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in cases where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the material collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence or where continuation of the criminal proceedings would 10 amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
14. In the present case, the F.I.R. was registered pursuant to an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After conducting investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused persons, including the present petitioners. The learned trial court, upon consideration of the material available on record, took cognizance of the offences and framed charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The order framing charges has also been affirmed by the revisional court.
15. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that they are bona fide purchasers and that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature. However, at this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. Whether the land in question forms part of a graveyard, whether the members of the institution were competent to execute the sale deed, and whether the petitioners had knowledge of the alleged illegality are all matters which require evidence and can only be determined during the course of trial.
16. It is also well settled that merely because a civil dispute may exist between the parties would not by itself bar criminal proceedings if 11 the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences. Upon perusal of the F.I.R., the charge sheet and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the view that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons and the matter requires adjudication on the basis of evidence during trial.
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the F.I.R., the charge sheet, or the orders passed by the courts below. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
18. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party during the course of trial.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra