[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mohit Kerketta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11556-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 684 of 2026
1 - Mohit Kerketta S/o Late Budhram Kerketta, aged about 59 years R/o
Village Polmi, P.S. Pali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shankar Kerketta S/o Mohit Kerketta aged about 33 years R/o
Village Polmi, P.S. Pali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur,
Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Alok Vilson S/o Late C. Vilson, aged about 65 years R/o House No.
228/16, Deepupara, Vidya Nagar, P.S. Tarbahar, Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate
No.1/State
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
11.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
ROHIT
Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for
KUMAR
CHANDRA
the State/respondent No.1.
2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section
528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the
following prayers :-
"I. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by
the petitioners.
II. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the F.I.R. bearing No. 458/2024, registered
on 20.05.2024 at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh against petitioners,
lodged on the instance of respondent No.2 against
the petitioners herein namely Mohit Kerketta &
Shankar Kerketta, for the offence punishable under
Section 403, 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B of Indian
Penal Code (Note:- Subsequently after filing of the
charge sheet the charges have been framed under
Section 403, 405, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 &
120B of Indian Penal Code).
III. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash entire charge sheet/final report hearing No.
534/2024 filed on dated 24.09.2024 before Chief
Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur for the
offences punishable under Section 403, 406, 420,
467, 468, 120B of Indian Penal Code (Note:-
Subsequently after filing of the charge sheet the
charges have been framed under Section 403, 405,
420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of Indian Penal
Code).
IV. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the impugned order of taking cognizance
dated 26.10.2024, passed in Criminal Case No.
10436/2024 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh v.
Birim Sai Toppo & others, whereby the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur has
taken cognizance of the impugned Chargesheet and
registered the impugned criminal proceeding as
Criminal Case No.10436/2024 against the petitioners
and the entire criminal proceedings i.e. Criminal
Case No. 10436/2024 in the matter of State of
Chhattisgarh v. Birim Sai Toppo & others, pending
before Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur for the offence under section 403, 405, 420,
465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of Indian Penal
Code may also kindly be quashed, so far as it relates
to the petitioners are concerned.
V. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the
9th Additional Session's Judge, where by the revision
against framing of charge has been dismissed in
Criminal Revision No. 214/2025, the Hon'ble Court
may further be pleased to set-aside the order dated
17.10.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 10436/2024
by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur, whereby the charges under Section 403,
405, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of Indian
Penal Code have been framed.
VI. And to kindly grant any other relief to the
petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may
also granted to the Petitioners."
3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition
are that Respondent No.2/complainant filed an application under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
claiming himself to be a member of the Church of Christ Mission
in India. In the said application, it was alleged that the present
petitioners had purchased land bearing Khasra No. 296/1 from the
other co-accused persons and that the said land is the graveyard
belonging to the Church of Christ Mission in India. The learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, vide order dated 18.04.2024,
allowed the said application and directed the In-charge of the
concerned Police Station to investigate the matter and submit a
report. Pursuant to the said order passed in Application No.
(Unregistered/2024), an F.I.R. was registered on 20.05.2024 in
relation to the alleged incident.
4. In the F.I.R., it has been alleged, inter alia, that the complainant is
a member of the Church of Christ Mission in India, Kududand,
Bilaspur, which is a registered institution bearing Registration No.
11/53-54 and having its head office at Kududand, Bilaspur. It has
further been alleged that the members of the said institution
executed a registered sale deed dated 16.12.2021 in favour of the
present petitioners in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 296/1,
admeasuring 1 acre, for a consideration of Rs. 99,22,500/-. It has
also been alleged that the said land forms part of the graveyard,
which is enclosed by a boundary wall, and the land is recorded as
"Isai Kabristan." It has further been alleged that in Civil Suit No.
22A/2013 the said land has been declared to be graveyard land. It
is also alleged that the land was sold for a meagre consideration,
whereas the actual market value of the said land is more than Rs.
4 crores. According to the complainant, the members of the
institution had no authority to sell the graveyard land.
5. After registration of the F.I.R., the police conducted an
investigation into the matter and subsequently filed a charge
sheet against the members of the institution as well as against the
purchasers, including the present petitioners. ANNEXURE P/1 is
the certified copy of the charge sheet along with the copy of the
F.I.R. Thereafter, the learned trial Court took cognizance of the
alleged offences and, vide order dated 17.10.2025, framed
charges against the accused persons, including the present
petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406,
420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. ANNEXURE
P/2 is the certified copy of the order taking cognizance dated
26.10.2024 along with the relevant order sheets.
6. The said order framing charges was challenged by the petitioners
before the learned Sessions Court by way of a criminal revision;
however, the learned Sessions Court, vide order dated
29.01.2026, dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
7. Being aggrieved by the order framing charges, the order passed
by the revisional court, as well as the entire criminal proceedings,
the petitioners have preferred the present petition. ANNEXURE
P/3 is the certified copy of the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by
the revisional court, ANNEXURE P/4 are the certified copies of
the charge memos dated 17.10.2025, and ANNEXURE P/5 is the
copy of the application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure along with the order dated 18.04.2024.
8. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioners vehemently argued that even if the entire prosecution
case is accepted at its face value, no offence is made out against
the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners are bona fide
purchasers who purchased land bearing Khasra No. 296/1,
admeasuring 1.00 acre, by way of a registered sale deed dated
16.12.2021 after paying substantial consideration and after
obtaining the requisite permission from the Registrar. The said
land has never been recorded as graveyard land in the revenue
records, and the graveyard land is a separate parcel bearing
Khasra No. 296/2. It is further submitted that the issue regarding
the nature of the land had already been adjudicated by the
competent civil court in Civil Suit No. 22A/2013 (judgment dated
09.08.2021) and Civil Suit No. 129A/2011 (judgment dated
03.11.2018). Despite being a party to the civil proceedings and
having full knowledge of the said judgments, the complainant
suppressed these material facts and initiated criminal proceedings
by filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which resulted in the registration of the
impugned F.I.R.
9. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate, appearing for
the petitioners that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged with an
unexplained and inordinate delay, and the allegations made
therein are contrary to the findings recorded by the competent civil
court as well as the revenue records. The dispute, if any, is purely
civil in nature and has been given a colour of criminality with an
oblique motive to harass the petitioners. The charge sheet has
been filed without proper investigation and without collecting any
material to establish that the petitioners had purchased graveyard
land or had committed any offence. Even if the allegations
contained in the F.I.R. and charge sheet are taken to be true in
their entirety, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable
under Sections 403, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code are completely absent.
10. Learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, further
submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings in the
present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of
law. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of U.P. ,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947; Gulam Mustafa v. State of
Karnataka, (2023) 18 SCC 265; Randheer Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2021) 14 SCC 626; Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B. , (2023) 15
SCC 135; and Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan , (2005) 7 SCC 69,
wherein it has been held that criminal proceedings arising out of
essentially civil disputes and lacking the basic ingredients of the
alleged offences are liable to be quashed in exercise of the
inherent powers of the High Court. It is therefore submitted that
the impugned F.I.R., the charge sheet, the order taking
cognizance, and the entire criminal proceedings deserve to be
quashed.
11. Per contra, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the State/ respondent No.1 opposed the petition
and submitted that the petitioners have failed to make out any
case warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction. It is submitted that the F.I.R. was
registered pursuant to an order passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, and thereafter the police conducted a
detailed investigation and filed a charge sheet against the
accused persons, including the present petitioners. The learned
trial Court, after considering the material available on record, has
taken cognizance and framed charges for the offences punishable
under Sections 403, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, which order has also been affirmed by the revisional
court. Thus, it cannot be said at this stage that the proceedings
are without basis. It is further submitted that the allegations made
in the F.I.R. and the material collected during investigation clearly
disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. The question
as to whether the land in question forms part of a graveyard,
whether the members of the institution were competent to execute
the sale deed, and whether the petitioners had knowledge of the
alleged illegality are all disputed questions of fact which can only
be adjudicated upon after appreciation of evidence during trial. At
the stage of considering a petition for quashing, this Hon'ble Court
is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the
evidence or adjudicate disputed facts. It is also submitted that
merely because a civil dispute may also be involved would not by
itself bar criminal proceedings where the allegations disclose the
commission of cognizable offences. Since the charge sheet
discloses sufficient material indicating the involvement of the
petitioners in the alleged offences, the petition deserves to be
dismissed and the petitioners may raise all their defences before
the trial court during the course of trial.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
13. The present petition has been filed seeking quashment of the
F.I.R., the charge sheet, the order taking cognizance and the
order framing charges passed by the learned trial court. It is well
settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now corresponding
provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) is to be
exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in cases
where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the material collected
during investigation do not disclose the commission of any
offence or where continuation of the criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
14. In the present case, the F.I.R. was registered pursuant to an order
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After
conducting investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against
the accused persons, including the present petitioners. The
learned trial court, upon consideration of the material available on
record, took cognizance of the offences and framed charges
against the accused persons for the offences punishable under
Sections 403, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code. The order framing charges has also been affirmed by the
revisional court.
15. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that
they are bona fide purchasers and that the dispute in question is
purely civil in nature. However, at this stage, this Court is not
required to undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence or
adjudicate disputed questions of fact. Whether the land in
question forms part of a graveyard, whether the members of the
institution were competent to execute the sale deed, and whether
the petitioners had knowledge of the alleged illegality are all
matters which require evidence and can only be determined
during the course of trial.
16. It is also well settled that merely because a civil dispute may exist
between the parties would not by itself bar criminal proceedings if
the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences.
Upon perusal of the F.I.R., the charge sheet and the material
collected during investigation, this Court is of the view that a prima
facie case is made out against the accused persons and the
matter requires adjudication on the basis of evidence during trial.
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does
not find any ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for
quashing the F.I.R., the charge sheet, or the orders passed by the
courts below. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly
dismissed.
18. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not
prejudice the case of either party during the course of trial.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
