[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Dalbeer Kaur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 666 of 2026
Smt. Dalbeer Kaur W/o Surendra Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Dr.
Rajendra Prasad, Murum Mine, Farid Nagar Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Supela, Chowki
Smriti Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Sohendra Kaur W/o Late Mohan Singh Aged About 90 Years
R/o 118, Kripal Nagar Kohka Road, Kohka Bhilai, Tehsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.03.10
18:32:58
+0530
Order Sheet
10/03/2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned
counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. Purnendra
Khichariya, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Saumya
Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing
for the State/respondent No. 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
as per the prosecution story, on 23.08.2025 Police
Station Smriti Nagar received information in Crime No.
0/2025 under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS,
2023. It is alleged that the complainant is an old-aged
lady who owns land bearing Khasra Nos. 31, 32 and
35, Rakba 05.50 acres, situated at Village Kohka, P.H.
No. 45. It is further alleged that, in respect of Khasra
No. 31, the present petitioner, through a power of
attorney, sold the land to Vishal Nexa Tizen
Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Sanjeev
Kumar Singh and, in conspiracy, executed the registry
by committing forgery. On the basis of the written
complaint, the police registered the case, which was
subsequently transferred to the concerned police
station and registered as FIR No. 0992/2025 dated
23.08.2025 for the offences under Sections 318(4) and
3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner appeared before the
police authorities and stated that on 27.06.2025 she
had obtained the power of attorney in respect of the
said land. Owing to financial need, the owner had
agreed to sell the property. The proprietor of Vishal
Nexa Tizen Construction Pvt. Ltd., through its Director
Sanjeev Kumar Singh, issued cheques towards the
sale consideration and thereafter the transaction was
duly completed through a registered sale deed before
the competent Sub-Registrar. He further contended that
the son of the complainant, due to greed and ulterior
motives, has instigated the filing of the present
complaint and a false case has been lodged against
the petitioner. In fact, the power of attorney for selling
the land was executed in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Durg, wherein the complainant herself
appeared along with two witnesses and voluntarily
executed and registered the power of attorney as well
as the subsequent sale transaction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated
that, as per the FIR itself, co-accused Sanjeev Kumar
Singh purchased the land from Sohendra Kaur on
01.06.2025, whereas the power of attorney had already
been executed earlier on 05.06.2024. Despite the lapse
of nearly one year, no complaint was ever made by the
complainant alleging that the power of attorney had
been obtained forcibly or fraudulently. No public notice,
paper publication, or legal notice for cancellation of the
power of attorney was issued by the complainant,
which clearly indicates that the said power of attorney
continued to remain valid and subsisting. He further
submitted that at the time of execution and registration
of the sale deed, the complainant herself appeared
before the office of the Sub-Registrar and the land was
duly registered in the name of co-accused Sanjeev
Kumar Singh, proprietor of Vishal Nexa Tizen
Construction Pvt. Ltd., after following due legal
procedure. It is contended that the entire dispute, if any,
is purely of civil nature relating to a property
transaction. However, the police authorities have
unnecessarily implicated the petitioner in the present
case and falsely made her an accused, even though
she has no nexus with the alleged offence.
Learned counsel further prays that the matter be
referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this
Court, as there remains a possibility of an amicable
settlement between the parties.
It is further contended that the charge-sheet has
already been filed before the learned trial Court on
29.11.2025 and the learned trial Court has already
taken cognizance. Vide order dated 03.02.2026,
charges have been framed against the petitioner.
Considering the fact that the dispute is between
the petitioner and respondent No. 2, who are family
members, this Court deems it appropriate to make an
endeavour to resolve the matter through mediation.
Accordingly, the parties are directed to remain
present before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of
this Court on 02.04.2026.
The learned State counsel is directed to inform
respondent No. 2 of this order to enable her
appearance before the Mediation Centre on the
aforesaid date.
List this matter along with the report of the
Mediation Centre on 07.04.2026.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Criminal Case No.
RCC 37672/2025 shall remain stayed against the
petitioner.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
