[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sonam Devi Thadwani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11786-DB
NAFR
Digitally
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
BABLU
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.03.12
18:27:53
+0530
WPCR No. 137 of 2026
Sonam Devi Thadwani W/o Rajkumar Thadwani Aged About 57 Years
R/o Banstaal, Tehsil - Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. New
Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Superintendent Of Police, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Barkha Rani Masih W/o Shri Shailesh Masih Aged About 43 Years
R/o Amlidih P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Badal Kumar Dani S/o Shri Manohar Prakash Dani Aged About 47
Years R/o Amlidih, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur
(C.G.)
5 - O.P. Soni (Revenue Inspector) R/o Amlidih P.S. New Rajendra
Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
12.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing
for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
following relief(s):
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction directing
Respondent No. 1 (SHO, Police Station New Rajendra
(Superintendent of Police, District Raipur) to
immediately register an FIR against the Private
Respondents (Respondents No. 3 to 5) for cognizable
offences under Sections 331, 324, 223, 336, 340,
318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, and other applicable provisions, on the basis of
the complaints filed by the Petitioner.
b) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Sonam Devi
Thadwani, aged about 57 years, resident of Baanstal, Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.), is the lawful owner and was in actual physical possession
of land bearing Khasra No. 150/14, situated at Mouza Amlidih, P.H. No.
00069, R.N.M. Raipur-11 Tikrapara, Tehsil and District Raipur, which
she purchased through a registered sale deed dated 20.10.2008 from
Kishan Lal Sahu. After purchase of the said land, the Petitioner applied
for mutation through the Bhuiya Karyakram of the Government of
Chhattisgarh and pursuant to proceedings before the Tehsildar, Raipur,
the land was duly recorded in her name, thereby confirming her
ownership and possession. The petitioner thereafter constructed a
pucca boundary wall (chaar-deewari) with an iron gate around the said
property and remained in peaceful and continuous possession of the
land. The private respondents, respondent No.3, namely, Barkha Rani
Masih and respondent No.4 Badal Kumar Dani, with the intention to
illegally grab the petitioner's land, started falsely claiming that the said
property falls within their Khasra boundaries and allegedly manipulated
the boundary description (chauhaddi) in certain revenue records. On
12.03.2023, the private respondents forcibly broke the lock installed by
the petitioner, demolished the boundary wall and trespassed upon the
said property and started raising unauthorized construction thereon.
4. The petitioner immediately lodged a written complaint on
28.03.2023 at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, disclosing
commission of cognizable offences, however, the police authorities
failed to register an FIR and merely made a general diary entry stating
that the dispute is civil in nature. Aggrieved by the illegal acts of the
private respondents, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Civil Application
No. 44/2023 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Raipur seeking
protection of the property. The Civil Court, vide order dated 05.06.2023,
after examining the sale deed and other material on record, granted a
stay order in favour of the Petitioner and prima facie found that the
Petitioner had purchased the disputed property and had constructed a
boundary wall thereon. Despite the said stay order, the rrivate
respondents continued raising illegal construction on the disputed land
in violation of the Civil Court's order. The petitioner thereafter
approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur by filing an
application under Section 175(3) BNSS seeking directions for
registration of FIR, however, the said application was rejected on
09.08.2023 holding that the dispute is civil in nature. The Criminal
Revision preferred by the Petitioner was also dismissed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur on 13.01.2026. The petitioner
submits that the private respondents have fraudulently manipulated
boundary descriptions in revenue records and forged documents with
the intention to illegally grab the Petitioner's land and to justify their
unauthorized possession and construction.
5. Despite repeated complaints made by the petitioner to the police
authorities disclosing offences such as criminal trespass, mischief,
forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy, the police have refused to
register an FIR on the ground that the matter is civil in nature. In these
circumstances, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this
Hon'ble Court by way of the present petition seeking appropriate
directions for registration of FIR and action against the private
respondents for the offences committed by them. Hence the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
police authorities have failed to perform their statutory and mandatory
duty to register an FIR despite the Petitioner's written complaints clearly
disclosing commission of several cognizable offences including criminal
trespass, mischief, forgery of public records, cheating and criminal
conspiracy. It is well settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 that
registration of FIR is mandatory when information discloses a
cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such
circumstances. The refusal of the police authorities to register FIR on
the ground that the dispute is of "civil nature" is wholly arbitrary and
contrary to settled law, as the existence of a civil dispute does not bar
investigation into independent criminal offences arising out of the same
set of facts. He further submits that the private respondents have
willfully violated the Stay Order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the
competent Civil Court and have continued illegal construction on the
disputed property in brazen disregard of the judicial order. Such willful
disobedience constitutes a cognizable offence under Section 223 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, apart from offences relating to criminal
trespass, mischief and forgery of public records by manipulating
boundary (chauhaddi) descriptions in revenue documents with the
intention of illegally grabbing the Petitioner's land. The acts of the
Private Respondents therefore disclose serious criminal offences which
require immediate police investigation.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the continued
inaction of the police authorities in refusing to register FIR and take
action against the private respondents has enabled them to persist with
illegal construction and unlawful occupation of the Petitioner's land,
thereby causing grave and irreparable injury to the Petitioner. Such
arbitrary refusal amounts to gross dereliction of statutory duty, violates
the Petitioner's right to equality and protection of law under Article 14
and her right to life and property under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, and effectively aids and abets the illegal acts of the Private
Respondents. Unless immediate directions are issued for registration of
FIR and investigation, the petitioner will suffer irreparable harm and
permanent dispossession from her property.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the
submissions advanced by the respective counsel.
10. From the facts as narrated in the writ petition, it is evident that the
dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents primarily
arises out of a claim relating to title, possession and boundary
description of the land bearing Khasra No.150/14 situated at Mouza
Amlidih, Tehsil and District Raipur. The petitioner herself has already
approached the competent Civil Court by filing a civil proceeding
wherein the Civil Court has passed an interim order dated 05.06.2023.
Thus, the matter with respect to the rights of the parties over the
disputed land is already sub-judice before the competent Civil Court. It
is also not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier invoked the remedy
available under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur
seeking direction for registration of FIR and the said application has
been rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 09.08.2023.
The petitioner thereafter preferred a criminal revision which has also
been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur on
13.01.2026.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the petitioner has
already availed the statutory remedy provided under the criminal law for
seeking registration of FIR and the competent courts have considered
the matter and declined to grant such relief. Once the petitioner has
exhausted the remedy under the provisions of the criminal law and the
orders passed by the competent courts have attained finality, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the same
relief. It is well settled that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is
discretionary in nature and ordinarily the High Court does not entertain
a writ petition seeking a direction for registration of FIR particularly
when the aggrieved person has an efficacious alternative remedy
available under the criminal law. In the present case, the petitioner has
already availed such remedy and the competent courts have declined to
interfere. Further, from the material placed on record, the dispute
between the parties appears to be essentially related to the title,
possession and boundary of immovable property which is already the
subject matter of civil proceedings. The issues regarding ownership,
possession and alleged encroachment are matters which are required
to be adjudicated upon by the competent Civil Court on the basis of
evidence led by the parties. In such circumstances, the invocation of
writ jurisdiction for directing registration of FIR would not be appropriate.
So far as the allegation regarding violation of the civil court's interim
order is concerned, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the
competent Civil Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we
are of the considered opinion that no case for interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be
and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd Sd/-/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
