Smt. Aasha Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 87 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Aasha Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                           1




                                                                      2026:CGHC:9922-DB
                                                                                          NAFR
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Digitally signed by
                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Date: 2026.02.26
17:00:39 +0530



                                                  CRMP No. 597 of 2026

                      Smt. Aasha Chandrakar W/o Rajnish Chandrakar Aged About 49 Years
                      R/o Qr. No. 4A, Road No. 23, Sector-10, P.S. Bhilainagar Sector-6,
                      Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)
                                                                               ... Petitioner(s)
                                                         versus
                      1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Padmanabhpur District Durg
                      (C.G.)
                      2 - Saurya Renke S/o Shri Ashok Renke Aged About 36 Years R/o Near
                      Old Shiv Mandir, Vaishali Nagar Bhilai District Durg (C.G.)
                                                                               ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Arvind Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Saumya Rai, Deputy Government No.1-State Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.02.2026

1. Heard Mr.Arvind Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well

as Mr.Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate

appearing for respondent No.1/State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking

following relief(s):

"1. Entire Criminal Proceedings of Criminal RCC No. 21797/2025, pending before the learned CJM Durg, District Durg (C.G.), (ANNEXURE P-1) so far as it relates to the Petitioner.

2. Cognizance order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/3), passed by learned CJM Durg, District Durg (C.G.).

3. Final Report bearing no. 534/2022 dated 15.07.2022 submitted by the Outpost Padmanabhpur Police Station- Durg Kotwali, District- Durg (C.G.) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in connection with Crime No. 677/2019 registered on 28.07.2019, under section 420, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code, (ANNEXURE P-2) so far as it relates to the Petitioner.

4. Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit may also be kindly passed in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

5. Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

3. Facts of the case are that the complainant, Shaurya Renke,

resident of Vaishali Nagar, filed a complaint alleging commission

of offences under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code before the learned Magistrate. It was alleged that an

agreement to sell was executed between the complainant and

Gopal Bhargav in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 241/2,

admeasuring 0.47 hectare and 0.48 hectare, situated at Village

Dhanora, District Durg.

4. The agreement to sell was executed through Bhisham

Chandrakar, who was the General Power of Attorney holder of the

original landowners. The original landowners, namely Mehtarin

Bai, Ramesh Kumar, Devendra Kumar, Lata Bai, Nisha Bai,

Manisha Bai, and Asha Bai (Petitioner herein), are related to the

said Bhisham Chandrakar. Thereafter, the original landowners

executed a registered sale deed dated 16.08.2013 in favour of the

complainant, Shravan Kumar Bhargav, and Gopal Bhargav.

Following the execution of the sale deed, the land was mutated in

the names of the purchasers, and possession was handed over to

them on the same day. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of

the complainant that a civil dispute bearing Civil Suit No. 5A/2011

titled Indu & Others vs. State of C.G. & Others was pending

before the Civil Judge, Durg. The said suit involved Smt. Mehtarin

Bai, Gayatri Bai, Ramesh Kumar, Devendra Kumar, Lata Bai,

Nisha Bai, Manisha Bai, Asha Bai, and Feroz Khan, and was

decided on 24.01.2014. The complainant alleged that the

landowners had concealed the pendency of the civil suit at the

time of execution of the sale deed and thereby committed

cheating. It was further alleged that Bhisham Chandrakar, in his

capacity as Power of Attorney holder, had submitted a written

statement in the said civil suit on behalf of the landowners and

that the land was sold without disclosing the pendency of the civil

proceedings.

5. As per the order dated 24.01.2014 passed by the learned IVth

Civil Judge, Class-II, the names of Indu, Sitaram, and Kholuram

were directed to be mutated in respect of Khasra No. 241/2,

admeasuring 0.95 hectare. It is further alleged that Bhisham

Chandrakar did not raise any objection at the time of mutation.

Thereafter, the Naib Tehsildar, Durg, mutated the land on

12.09.2018, as a result of which the earlier mutation in favour of

Gopal Bhargav and the complainant was deleted. Consequently,

the land bearing Khasra No. 241/2, admeasuring 2.35 acres,

situated at Village Dhanora, was mutated in the names of

Induram, Geetaram, and Kholuram.

6. The complainant thereafter filed an application under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of an FIR against the accused

persons for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 34 IPC. During

the course of investigation, Ramesh Chandrakar expired on

17.03.2014. Smt. Mehtarin Bai and Bhisham Chandrakar also

expired subsequently. The petitioner and other family members

did not sign any document relating to the sale deed. It is

contended that the Power of Attorney holder alone was

responsible for execution of the sale transaction and receipt of the

sale consideration. Therefore, no offence under Sections 420,

406, and 34 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Hence, the

FIR lodged against the petitioner, the charge-sheet filed against

the petitioner, and the criminal proceedings pending before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, are liable to be quashed

in the interest of justice.

7. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition registered as CRMP No.

16/2026, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

07.01.2026, with liberty to file afresh subject to deposit of Rs.

2,000/- as costs within one week from the date of the order.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed CRMP No. 302/2026 seeking

extension of time to deposit the cost imposed vide order dated

07.01.2026. The said CRMP No. 302/2026 was allowed by the

Hon'ble Court vide order dated 05.02.2026.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The

police have registered an offence under Sections 420, 406, and

34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner on false and

fabricated grounds. The registration of the FIR and the

consequential proceedings are illegal and liable to be set aside in

the interest of justice. He further submits that the impugned FIR is

an afterthought and is based on a concocted story developed

against the petitioner and her relatives. The police have

mechanically registered the case and filed the charge-sheet

without there being any prima facie material against the petitioner.

Continuation of the criminal proceedings, in absence of any

substantive evidence, amounts to abuse of the process of law and

is therefore liable to be quashed. He also submits that the present

case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992

Supp (1) SCC 335) wherein the categories of cases fit for

quashing of FIR have been clearly enumerated. The allegations

made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not

constitute the alleged offences. He contended that there is

absolutely no material on record to establish that the petitioner

had any dishonest intention or was involved in any act of cheating

or criminal breach of trust. The essential ingredients of Sections

420 and 406 IPC, particularly the existence of mens rea at the

inception of the transaction, are conspicuously absent. He further

contended that the entire dispute, at its core, pertains to alleged

non-disclosure of a pending civil suit at the time of execution of

the sale deed, which subsequently resulted in deletion of mutation

in favour of the complainant. The grievance, therefore, arises out

of a contractual transaction and alleged defect in title, which is

purely civil in nature. He also contended that the appropriate

remedy available to the complainant, if any, is to seek recovery of

the amount or claim compensation before the competent Civil

Court against the person who allegedly received the sale

consideration. Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool for

settling civil disputes or exerting pressure upon the petitioner. It is

a settled principle of law that where the allegations, even if

accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the necessary criminal

intent to constitute offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC,

continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of

the process of the Court. The present case is essentially a breach

of contract or an issue relating to title, which does not attract

criminal liability. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is

respectfully prayed that the FIR, charge-sheet, and all

consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner

be quashed in the interest of justice.

9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the

submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that

the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be

dismissed. It is submitted that the FIR and the charge-sheet

disclose a clear prima facie case against the petitioner for

offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code. The material collected during investigation

reveals that the land in question was sold despite the pendency of

a civil suit concerning the same property, and the said fact was

not disclosed to the purchasers. Such non-disclosure, coupled

with the subsequent developments relating to mutation, prima

facie indicates dishonest intention and active participation of the

accused persons. Learned State counsel submits that the

question as to whether the petitioner had knowledge of the

pending civil dispute and whether there was dishonest intention at

the inception of the transaction are matters of evidence, which

cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether a

prima facie case is made out, and not to conduct a meticulous

appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that merely

because the transaction arises out of a sale deed does not

automatically render the dispute purely civil in nature. If the

ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust are prima facie

made out from the complaint and the material collected during

investigation, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely

on the ground that a civil remedy is also available. Civil and

criminal proceedings may coexist where the allegations disclose

both civil liability and criminal culpability. Learned State counsel

submits that the investigation has been completed and a charge-

sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. The

matter is at the stage of framing of charge. At this juncture,

interference by this Hon'ble Court would amount to stifling a

legitimate prosecution. It is further contended that the judgments

relied upon by the petitioner, including the principles laid down in

Bhajan Lal (supra) and other cases, are not applicable to the

facts of the present case, as the allegations herein do disclose the

commission of cognizable offences and cannot be said to be

inherently improbable or absurd. It is therefore prayed that this

Court may be pleased to dismiss the present petition and permit

the trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of

the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to

interfere in the present matter.

11. From a careful reading of the FIR, complaint, and the charge-

sheet filed by the investigating agency, it cannot be said at this

stage that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.

The allegations disclose that the property in question was sold

during the pendency of a civil dispute and that such fact was

allegedly not disclosed to the purchasers. Whether the petitioner

had knowledge of the pending civil proceedings and whether there

was dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction are

questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and

cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(Section 528 B.N.S.S.)

12. It is well settled that the inherent powers of this Court are to be

exercised sparingly and with great caution. At the stage of framing

of charge, the Court is only required to examine whether there

exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. A

meticulous examination of evidence or determination of disputed

facts is impermissible at this stage.

13. The contention of the petitioner that the dispute is purely civil in

nature cannot be accepted outright, as the allegations in the

complaint, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose

ingredients of the offences alleged. The mere availability of a civil

remedy does not bar criminal prosecution when the necessary

ingredients of criminal offences are disclosed.

14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no ground to exercise its

inherent jurisdiction for quashing the FIR or the consequential

criminal proceedings. The petition, being devoid of merit,

deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

                  Sd/-                                        Sd/-

        (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                        (Ramesh Sinha)
               Judge                                      Chief Justice




Bablu