2026:CGHC:2724 Digitally signed by ANURADHA NAFR ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date:

2026.01.16

17:08:58 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 390 of 2022 Shiv Narayan Kushwaha S/o Ramdayal Kushwaha Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Amhar, Police Station Patna, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, P.S.

Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.

2 - Naval Ram S/o Mohan Bargah Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Harrapara, Ward No.5, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh)

... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate No.1 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

16.01.2026

1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following relief:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case for it's kind perusal and quash the entire charge sheet (Annexure P/1) and all the consequential criminal proceedings to the extent of present petitioner in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Inspector General, Ambikapur Range, alleging that he is the owner of certain lands bearing Khasra numbers [as mentioned in the complaint], which are ancestral property of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that persons namely Sanjay Agrawal, Bhupendra Yadav, Bhuri Bai, Manish Gupta, Prakhal Jaiswal, and Vinod Kumar had transacted the said lands on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, without including him, the original owner, as a party. On the basis of this complaint, the police registered an FIR on 01.03.2016 and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, certain documents were seized from the office of the Tahsildar. During the pendency of the investigation, the police implicated the present petitioner as an accused, alleging that the petitioner, being a practicing advocate, had prepared a forged WILL, which was allegedly used to effectuate the mutation of the land in question. Thereupon, the present petitioner filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before this Court and this Court had enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed, wherein the petitioner was formally implicated as an accused, and criminal proceedings were initiated against him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, under Criminal Case No. 680/2017.

4. Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned charge sheet is replete with illegality and perversity and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. She further submits that upon perusal of the entire charge sheet, it is evident that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the police authorities have not collected any material or direct evidence implicating the petitioner in the alleged crime. In light of the guidelines and directions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this is a fit case for quashing the charge sheet against the petitioner.

5. Ms. Rai further submits that the petitioner, being a practicing advocate, has only discharged his professional duty towards his client. He has not prepared any document, appeared in any proceedings, nor affixed any false seal or signature. No evidence exists in the charge sheet connecting the petitioner to the alleged offences. She submits that a civil dispute between the parties is pending before the C