The existence of a civil dispute or the redressal of grievances through civil/revenue remedies does not preclude criminal investigation or justify quashing an FIR if the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences such as forgery and cheating.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1 Heard Mr. Yashkarn Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

2 The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :-

“i. That this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased allow the present petition preferred by the petitioner under section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and Set aside the FIR Registered on 12.09.2025, with FIR Bearing No. 0451. Registered by Police Station Akaltara, District Jangjir Champa, Under Section 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ANNEXURE P/1)

iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and Set aside the Charge-sheet Bearing No. 598/2025 filled on 26.12.2025 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Akaltara, District Jangjir Champa, by the Police Station Akaltara, District Jangjir Champa Under Section 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860e (ANNEXURE P/2)

iv. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and Set aside the order of Cognizance passed Bearing Criminal Case No. 1948 of 2025 dated 26.12.2025 was passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Akaltara, District Jangjir Champa, Under Section 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ANNEXURE P/3)

v. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present petition.

vi. Grant, Cost of the Petition.”

3 Brief facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent No.2, who is sister-in-law of the petitioners, lodged an FIR dated 12.09.2025 under Sections 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, alleging that the petitioners fraudulently removed her name and that of her daughter from the revenue records of several ancestral lands following the death of her husband, the elder brother of the petitioners. The FIR claimed that the petitioners colluded to forge her signature to effectuate the mutation. The registration of the FIR followed the completion of a revenue case under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, which was initiated by the petitioners to lawfully update the revenue records after the elder brother’s demise.

4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that FIR suffers from legal infirmity, being arbitrary and an abuse of the criminal process, and does not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioners. Even if the FIR allegations are taken at face value, they are omnibus, vague, and cannot sustain criminal proceedings. He further submitted that the complainant had voluntarily left the marital home and ceased familial ties, making the mutation lawful and justified. The complainant subsequently challenged the mutation through an appeal under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, which was allowed, restoring her name and her daughter’s name in the revenue records. He also submitted that despite redressal of her grievance, the impugned FIR was registered three years after the alleged acts, reflecting a delay that and that it is motivated by revenge and an attempt to harass them and impede their ability to file further appeals. He further asserted that the FIR is an afterthought arising from family disputes and not genuine criminal acts. Supporting documents, including revenue records, digital B1 copies, appellate orders, legal notices, and the family tree filed by the complainant, demonstrate that the grievance had been addressed through lawful civil remedies. He contended that the FIR was filed to harass them, affect the government job of Petitioner No.1, and punish Petitioner No.2, rather than to seek justice for any legitimate criminal wrongdoing.

5 On the other hand, learned