Chattisgarh High Court
Mahesh Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 June, 2021
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 168 of 2019
Mahesh Shukla, S/o Shri Surayapal Shukla, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Boirdadar, Raigarh, Disrtict- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Principal Secretary Home
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Superintendent of Police Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
3. The Station House Officer, Police Station- Chakradharnagar,
Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
4. Sita Devi Pandey, W/o Chandrashekar Pandey, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Boirdadar, Raigarh, Tehsil & District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Adv.
For State/respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
17.06.2021
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for registration of FIR against respondent
No. 4 for committing offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471
of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner in the writ petition, is
that the petitioner is title holder and possession holder of land
bearing Survey No. 66, plot No. 33, situated at Boirdadar,
District- Raigarh. In the year 2011, respondent No. 4 filed an
application under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code before
Tahsildar, Raigarh stating that he is having plot at Boirdadar,
District- Raigarh in Patwari Circle No. 13, Survey No. 66, Plot
No. 33 and the petitioner has encroached over 200 sq.ft. of plot
of the petitioner. She requested to remove the encroachment of
the petitioner. She has also filed sale deed. According to the sale
deed, area has been manipulated from 3900 sq.ft. to 9900 sq.ft.
On the basis of forged document, respondent No. 4 has
attempted to disposes the petitioner, as such, he made a
complaint before respondent No. 3 on 20.12.2018, but no action
has been taken, therefore, he made complaint before
respondent No. 2 on 15.02.2019, but no action has been taken,
as such, he has filed the present writ petition with prayer to
register FIR against respondent No. 4.
3. On the above factual matrix, the petitioner has prayed for
registration of FIR against respondent No. 4- Sita Devi Pandey
for committing offence under Section 420, 465, 468, 471 of I.P.C.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & others1, has examined the issue holding that
the petitioner has remedy of filing of complaint before the
concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 200 of
the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has again considered and
decided the issue in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant
Yashwant Dhage2 and M. Subramaniam & another Vs. S.
Janaki & another3.
5. Considering the facts and materials on record and in light of the
law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above
referred judgments, the present writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to file complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class having
jurisdiction over the place of offence and in-turn Magistrate will
1 (2008) 2 SCC 409
2 (2016) 6 SCC 277
3 (2020) 16 SCC 728
follow the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the
Cr.P.C.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
merits of the case whether the complaint discloses any criminal
offence or not.
7. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with
the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
