Chattisgarh High Court
Randeep Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 February, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:8576-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 98 of 2025
Randeep Singh S/o Late Surjeet Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o C-402,
Nilaya Apartments, Vip Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.).
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Surguja (C.G.).
2 - The Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur.
3 - The Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.).
4 - The Naib Tahsildar, Ambikapur-2, District Surguja (C.G.).
5 - Police Station Ambikapur, Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.).
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with
Mr. Nikhil Parakh, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Digitally
signed by
VEDPRAKASH Order on Board
DEWANGAN
2
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
19/02/2025
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the
FIR of Crime No. 661 of 2024 registered at Police Station Ambikapur,
District Surguja for the offence under sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and
340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has
claimed the following reliefs in his writ petition:
"(a) A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus
do issue calling for records pertaining to case of
petitioner from respondent concerned including the
record of revenue authorities, as detailed in writ
petition, for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if deem fit.
(b) A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate
writ do issue constituting a Special Investigating
Team in the matter for an inquiry in this regard in
respect of the averments made by the petitioner in
habendum of writ petition and also for the
investigation in respect of involvement of petitioner
in the alleged crime in question regarding which FIR
No.0661/2024 dated 27.9.2024 registered with Police
Station Ambikapur for the offence under Sections 318
(4), 336 (3), 338 and 340 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023, has been registered, in order to protect
the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under
Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as the
petitioner's case is of total innocence and
impersonation by some other person of the petitioner
and till the team is constituted in this regard and
reaches to the conclusion of the involvement of the
petitioner, protect the personal liberty of the
petitioner by passing appropriate order on such
terms as this Hon'ble Court in the peculiar factual
matrix of the case and in the interest of justice.
(c). A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate
writ do issue quashing the FIR No.0661/2024 dated
27.9.2024 registered with Police Station Ambikapur
for the offence under Sections 318 (4), 336 (3), 338
and 340 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against
petitioner in the peculiar factual matrix of the case.
(d) A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate
writ do issue directing for Court monitored
investigation in the matter, as not only this is the case
of abuse of process of law and abuse of process of
Court, but also of revenue Courts right from tip to the
toe and also of this Hon'ble Court of obtaining an
order purported to be claimed by the petitioner
without there being any authorization in this regard
and in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(e) Cost of the proceedings.
(f) Any other writs or directions that may be deemed
fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case."
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.07.2021, an application has
been made on behalf of the petitioner before the respondent No.
4/Nayab Tahsildar, Ambikapur for correction and mutation of his name
in the revenue records of the land bearing Khasra No. 491/3, Area
7.932 hectares, situated at village Krantiprakashpur, Tahsil Ambikapur,
District Surguja. Since the respondent No. 4 has not considered the
application of the petitioner, he moved a petition under section 8 read
with section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before
the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue for a direction to the Revenue
Authority to decide his application expeditiously. Vide order dated
20.10.2021, in case No. M/07/R/B-121/143/2021, the Board of
Revenue has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and directed
the respondent No. 4/Tahsildar Ambikapur to correct/mutate the name
of the petitioner in the revenue record of Khasra No. 491/3, Area 7.932
hectares of Village Krantiprakashpur. Despite the order, passed by the
Board of Revenue on 20.10.2021, when his name has not been
mutated in the revenue record of the land of said khasra number, he
filed a WPC No. 4196 of 2022 before this Court, which was came up
for hearing on 28.09.2022 and the learned Single Judge of this Court
has disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner, with the direction to
the respondent No. 4 to comply with the order dated 20.10.2021,
passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur and directed to decide the
application of the petitioner within a period of three months from
receipt of a copy of that order, in accordance with law.
3. When the petitioner approached before the respondent No.
4/Tahsildar, Ambikapur along with a copy of order dated 28.09.2022,
passed in WPC No. 4196 of 2022, the respondent No.4 passed its
order on 20.03.2023 and hold that the land of Khasra No. 491/3, Area
7.932 hectares of Village Krantiprakashpur is recorded in the revenue
record as Bade Jhaad Ka Jungle in the record of Surguja Settlement,
and as per the existing law, the name of the petitioner cannot be
mutated, but since the petitioner is in possession of 0.920 hectare of
the land of said khasra number, he is entitled to get his name mutated
only with respect to 0.920 hectare of the land, and has directed to
mutate his name in the revenue record to that extent.
4. When the suspicion has been raised in the order dated 20.10.2021,
allegedly passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, in case No.
M/07/R/B-121/143/2021, the Collector, Surguja (Ambikapur) has
conducted an inquiry, and in the inquiry, it was found that the order
dated 20.10.2021, allegedly passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of
Revenue, is obtained, on the basis of forged document and thereafter,
the Board of Revenue has directed to take action against the erring
persons, and in compliance of that, the F.I.R. has been lodged by the
Nayab Tahsildar, Ambikapur, on which the present offence under
sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 has been registered against the petitioner, which is
under challenge in the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has
no concerned with any land and had not made any application before
the Revenue Authority and had not filed any writ petition before this
Court to obtain benefit for himself, but by using the name of the
petitioner, someone else have filed the application as well as the writ
petition and obtained order in his favour. When the petitioner has not
filed any application before the Revenue Authorities, he cannot be
prosecuted for the offence of cheating or any other offence.
He would further submit that the petitioner himself is a victim of
the offence and he prayed for a proper inquiry in the matter. Therefore,
the petition may be allowed and the impugned FIR against the
petitioner may be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has objected the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has
submitted that the petitioner has moved his application before the
Tahsildar, Ambikapur for mutation of his name over the Khasra No.
491/3 Area 7.932 hectares, situated at Village Krantiprakashpur, which
was a government land and recorded as Bade Jhaad Ka Jungle in
Surguja Settlement record and it is not his private land. By
manipulating and forging the documents, he claimed the said land of
his ownership and has moved application before the Tahsildar as well
as Revenue Board and obtained an order in his favour by taking
shelter of WPC No. 4196 of 2022. When the matter came into
knowledge of the Collector, Surguja (Ambikapur), he made an enquiry
and then the forgery came into knowledge of the authorities and
thereafter the Board of Revenue have instructed to take action against
the erring persons and ultimately the FIR has been lodged against the
petitioner. The FIR is registered on 27.09.2024 and it is in initial stage.
There is allegation of forgery of documents by the petitioner, which
needs detailed investigation and at this stage, it cannot be said that
the allegation leveled against the petitioner is vague or no offence
prima facie appears against him, therefore there is no merits in the
petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The State
of Maharashtra an others, AIR OnLine 2021 SC 192, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Para 23 held as under:
"23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, our final conclusions on the principal/core
issue, whether the High Court would be justified in
passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/
or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the
pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and in what circumstances and whether the
High Court would be justified in passing the order of
not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be
adopted" during the investigation or till the final
report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not
quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/ FIR in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final
conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under
the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code
to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation
into the cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in
the first information report that the Court will
not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been
observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be
confused with the formation in the context of
death penalty);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing
of which is sought, the court cannot embark
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from
usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the
two organs of the State operate in two specific
spheres of activities and one ought not to tread
over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police
are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of
justice, the Court and the judicial process
should not interfere at the stage of investigation
of offences;"
9. From perusal of the FIR, it reflected that the allegation against the
petitioner is that the land of Khasra No. 491/3, Area 7.932 hectares of
Village Krantiprakashpur, Tahsil Ambikapur is recorded in the revenue
record of Surguja Settlement as Bade Jhaal Ka Jungle, but the
petitioner has got an order from the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue,
Bilaspur for mutation of his name over the said land on the basis of the
revenue record of 1977-78.
10. Considering that the subject land was recorded in Surguja Settlement
Revenue Record in the name of State Government as 'Bade Jhaal Ka
Jungle', mutation of the name of the father of the petitioner in the year
1977-78 is suspicious, which requires investigation. Further that, an
order has been passed in favour of the petitioner on the petition under
section 8 read with section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue
Code filed before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur and
also that WPC No. 4196 of 2022 filed before this Court, but the
petitioner has denied that he has not filed those petitions and
someone else has filed in the name of the petitioner. All these are
serious allegations, which require investigation and the impugned FIR
has been lodged after the order passed by the Board of Revenue,
Bilaspur noticing the fraud committed by the petitioner.
11. Considering the nature of the allegation, the material produced with
the writ petition and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(supra), we do not find any ground to interfere with the registration of
the FIR and its investigation.
12. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit, liable
to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
