NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 2074 of 2022

1. Pankaj Kumar Dewangan S/o Shatruhan Lal Dewangan Aged About 32 Years R/o Bidi Colony Road, Near Mobile Tower, Urla, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh

2. Mukesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shatrughan Lal Dewangan Aged About

46 Years R/o Litiya Simaria, Tahsil- Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Bori, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Kavita Dewangan W/o Manish Aged About 35 Years R/o Amleshwar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

14.06 .2024

1. Heard Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the private respondents No.2.

2. The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR No. 151/2022 registered at Police Station – Bori, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC against the petitioners and entire criminal proceedings pursuant to impugned FIR.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Smt. Kavita Dewangan and present petitioners are real sister and brothers. The land bearing Khasra No. 1146, 1232, 1247/1 total admeasuring area 1.27 hectare situated at Village Arsi, P.H. No. 17 are the ancestral property of the complainant and her brothers (present petitioners). It is alleged by the complainant that the present petitioners filed an application before the Tahsildar, Bori for partition and on the basis of forged signature of complainant, both the petitioners have obtained the order of partition and they have received excess land. The report to this effect was lodged by the complainant / respondent No.2 and on the basis of same, the alleged offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioners in Crime No.

151/2022. Hence, this petition

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed an application for partition of ancestral lands before the Tahsildar and before passing partition order, the Tahsildar has issued public notice, whereby called objections from the public in partition case and the complainant appeared before the Tahsildar in the partition case and after by party hearing, the Tahsildar has passed the order for partition on the basis of Fard Partition submitted by the concerned Patwari. In the partition proceeding, as the costly land has been given into the share of the petitioners, therefore, the order of Tahsildar was challenged by the complainant / respondent No.2 before the SDO by filing an appeal, but subsequently, vide order dated 24.02.2022, the complainant / respondent No.2 herself withdrawn the appeal filed before the SDO and thereafter, she had lodged the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners. He further submits that after withdrawal of revenue appeal filed by the respondent No.2 before the SDO, the order of partition passed by the Tahsildar has attained finality, therefore, no criminal case is made out against the present petitioners. The dispute between the complainant and petitioners is of civil in nature and the same relates to partition of ancestral property, therefore, also no criminality is attracted in the instant case. The petitioners have not committed any fraud or cheating with the complainant / respondent No.2 and the essential ingredients of alleged offences are not made out against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to allow the petition and quash the impugned F