ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 9-2-2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 460 of 2017 whereby the First Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated 30-8-2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (Annexure P/2) in unregistered complaint wherein learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has held that from perusal of the complaint the dispute pertains to a civil dispute, therefore, prima facie, registration of complaint is not permissible and dismissed the complaint.

2. The facts projected by the petitioner, in brief, are that the petitioner is the owner of a residential land situated at Narmada Para, Satkar Hotel Gali, Indira Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, bearing plot No. 8/1 of Khasra number 497/2 admeasuring 3010 sq. It is contended by learned counsel that the said property was purchased by the petitioner out of his own income by way of a sale deed executed on 1-7-1972. The petitioner on his own accord and out of his own earnings constructed a residential house on the said property in the year 2007-2008 after obtaining necessary permission and sanction from Nagar Palika Nigam, Raipur. Thereafter, respondent No.3 who is brother of the petitioner was residing in the said house. In the year 2011 the petitioner insisted his brother/respondent No.3 to vacate the said property as he needed the property for his own need and purpose. It has been informed by respondent No.3 that he is also the owner of the said property, therefore, he refused to vacate the property. The petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act from Nagar Palika Nigam, Raipur, wherein it4 has been informed that in the year 2009 the name of the petitioner was mutated in the municipal records of the property in favour of respondents No. 2 to 4 along with the petitioner by submitting a consent letter dated 17-4-1995. Thus, the property of the sole ownership of the petitioner was recorded to be co-owned by respondents No. 2 to 4 in the records of Nagar Palika Nigam, Raipur based on the settlement deed dated 17-4-1995.

3. The complainant on the basis of the factual matrix, has filed the complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class contending that respondents No. 2 to 4 with mala fide intention to grab the valuable property have fabricated consent letter which is an offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. The petitioner made a complaint before the Police Station, Maudhapara to register FIR against the respondents and on 29-1-2013 he has also sent legal notice to respondents No. 2 to 5, but no action has been taken by the Police of Police Station Maudhapara, therefore, he has filed present complaint on 18-3-2013 before the Senior Superintendent of Police Raipur and prayed for registration of FIR against respondents No. 2 to 4 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 , 471, 120-B, 34 of the IPC.

4. The petitioner has examined himself on 6-12-2015 and one Devendra Singh as PW/2 for recording preliminary evidence before registration and the hand writing expert Smt. Dr. Sunita Dhenge on 3-8-2015. The petitioner in his complaint statement has categorically stated that forged consent letter was prepared and by this document names of respondents No. 2 to 4 have been incorporated in the property. The other witnesses examined by the complainant have also stated the same version. The hand-witting expert has also deposed before the trial Court that as per his report, the signature is forged one. It has been further contended that without considering the primary evidence adduced, the trial court has recorded that it is purely a civil dispute, therefore, criminal law cannot be taken into motion. . Dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 30-8-2017. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred criminal revision before the lea