Chattisgarh High Court
Narendra Kumar Mishra vs Manoj Kumar on 22 June, 2022
CRR-1099-2019
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 1099 of 2019
Narendra Kumar Mishra, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Jeevan Lal Mishra,
Resident of Village Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhatha, Tahsil Bilha, District
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Manoj Kumar, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Jeevanlal Mishra,
Resident of Village Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh)
2. Shatruhan Prasad, aged about 30 years, S/o Late Jeevanlal Mishra,
Resident of Village Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh)
3. Shiv Kumar, aged about 28 years, S/o Late Jeevanlal Mishra, Resident
of Village Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh)
4. Ku. Shyama Mishra, aged about 22 years, D/o Late Jeevanlal Mishra,
Resident of Village Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh)
5. Smt. Uma, aged about 25 years, W/o Brij Kumar Sharma, Resident of
Village Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh), at present- Tilkeja or Urga, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)
6. Smt. Sarla Dwivedi, aged about 36 years, W/o Krishna Kumar Dwivedi,
Resident of Behind Budhwari Bazar, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)
7. State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station
Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For petitioner : Mr. Ajay Chandra, Advocate
For respondents No. 1 to 6 : None though served via notice.
For respondent No.7-State : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl. A.G. with
Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
CRR-1099-2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
(22.06.2022)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner/revisionist under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated
24.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned 1 st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur
(C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2018, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein and affirmed
the judgment passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bilaspur (C.G.), dated 07.06.2018, acquitting the respondents No.1 to 6 herein
from the charges under Section 467, 468, 420 & 34 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two Courts below
are absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondents No.01 to 6 herein from
the charges aforementioned by recording illegal and perverse findings, which
is contrary to the record and, therefore, the instant revision deserves to be
allowed and the orders passed by the two Courts below are liable to be set
aside.
3. None for the respondents No.01 to 06 though served via notice.
4. Complainant, namely, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, petitioner and
respondents No.01 to 06 are brothers and sisters and they all are children of
Late Jeevanlal Mishra and Smt. Draupati Bai. They are the joint owners of a
property being Khasra No.491/1, area 2.60 acre, situated at Village Bodri, P.H.
No.21, Tehsil- Bilah, District Bilaspur (C.G.).
5. The allegations of the complainant is that the respondents No.01 to 06
CRR-1099-2019
and Smt. Draupati Bai have alienated the aforesaid property without taking
consent and approval from the complainant, namely, Dinesh Kumar Mishra,
and the petitioner herein by playing fraud and forgery vide regisered sale-
deed dated 14.09.1999 and, thereby, committed the offence.
6. Both the Courts below have considered the issue and came to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges under
Sections 467, 468, 420 & 34 of IPC and thereby acquitted the respondents
No.01 to 06 herein. The findings recorded by the two Courts below that the
charges under Sections 467, 468, 420 & 34 of IPC have not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt is a finding of fact based on record, which is neither
perverse nor contrary to law, particularly when the complainant, the petitioner
and respondents No.01 to 06 are brothers and sisters and the matter is of civil
nature.
7. In that view of the matter, we do not find any good reason to entertain
this revision and same deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
[email protected]
