[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dharmendra Patel vs State Of C.G on 6 April, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 944 of 2026
1. Dharmendra Patel S/o Late H.L. Patel Aged About 42 Years
Caste- Kurmi, R/o Shanti Nagar, Ward Nadan Gali Jagdalpur,
Distt.- Bastar (C.G.)
2. Smt. Geeta Patel W/o Late H. L. Patel Aged About 65 Years
Caste- Kurmi, R/o Shanti Nagar, Ward Nadan Gali Jagdalpur,
Distt.- Bastar (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of C.G. Through - S.H.O. Police Station- Bodhghat Distt.-
Bastar (C.G.)
2. Vivek Patel S/o Late H. L. Patel Aged About 42 Years Caste-
Kurmi, R/o Shanti Nagar, Mother Teresa Ward Housing Board
Colony Near Ganesh Temple Jagdalpur, Distt.- Bastar (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
Digitally
signed by
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.04.06
17:52:59
+0530
Order Sheet
06/04/2026 Heard Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, learned counsel
for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned
Government Advocate, appearing for the
State/respondent No. 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
as per the prosecution case, the complainant lodged an
oral report at Police Station Bodhghat stating that he
resides in a rented house at Mother Teresa Ward,
Housing Board Colony, Jagdalpur along with his wife
and two children. It is alleged that about 20 years ago,
the complainant along with petitioner No. 1 and late
Devendra Patel had jointly purchased land
admeasuring approximately 1225 square feet situated
at Shanti Nagar Ward, Nandan Gali, Jagdalpur. It is
further alleged that after the death of Devendra Patel,
petitioner No. 1 got the name of petitioner No. 2
(mother) recorded in the revenue records in respect of
the said share without the knowledge of the
complainant, and that the petitioners are raising
construction over more than their share of land.
It is further alleged that on 30.11.2025 at about
7:00 p.m., when the complainant along with his wife
and son visited the said property seeking partition and
possession of his alleged share, the petitioners abused
him in filthy language, made caste-related remarks, and
extended threats to his life, on account of which he felt
humiliated and threatened.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that on the basis of the aforesaid allegations,
FIR has been registered against the petitioners for
offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3)
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and
upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has
been filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jagdalpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that
even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face
value, the same unmistakably discloses a purely civil
dispute arising out of a property disagreement between
close family members. Petitioner No. 1 is the real
brother and petitioner No. 2 is the mother of the
complainant, and the criminal machinery has been set
in motion solely to exert pressure in relation to mutation
and partition of the ancestral property.
It is further submitted that after the death of
Devendra Patel, the name of petitioner No. 2 has been
recorded in the revenue records in accordance with
law, which has triggered the present dispute. The
complainant, with an oblique motive to secure transfer
of the said share in his favour, has instituted the
present false and vexatious proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that a bare perusal of the FIR, statements recorded
under Section 161 of the BNSS, and the charge-sheet
clearly demonstrates that the essential ingredients of
the alleged offences are conspicuously absent. The
allegations are vague, omnibus, and bereft of any
specific overt act attributable to the petitioners so as to
constitute the offences alleged.
It is further stated that the petitioners had earlier
lodged a complaint against the complainant in respect
of the same dispute, and the present FIR is nothing but
a counterblast to the said proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are respectable persons and are
residing separately, and continuation of the criminal
proceedings would amount to a gross abuse of the
process of law.
In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the
impugned FIR, charge-sheet, and the entire criminal
proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the
inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court, being manifestly
mala fide and not disclosing the commission of any
cognizable offence.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2 by speed post.
Learned State counsel appears and accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Accordingly,
issuance of notice to respondent No. 1 stands
dispensed with.
Process fee be paid within one week.
Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
Two weeks' time is granted to learned State
counsel as well as respondent No. 2 to file their reply-
affidavits. Thereafter, two weeks' time is granted to
learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder-
affidavit, if any.
List the matter thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings
pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) in Criminal Case
No.147 of 2026 against the petitioners shall remain
stayed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
