Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the orderdated 10th November 2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur (learned Trial Court) vide which a complaint filed by the petitioner (complainant before learned trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the Station House OfÏcer (SHO), police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, asserting that his grandmother had executed a Will bequeathing the first floor of her building to him. A mutation number 733 dated 2nd April 2004 was attested based on the Will. Smt Zubeda filed a false application before Tehsildar Sadar, who directed Patwari to viusit the spot and prepare a report depicting the spot positioon. Patwari prepared a false report in favour of Aneesh MoChammad and Zubeda to benefit them. Tehsildar Sadar attested mutation number 892 dated 22nd June 2009 in favour of Aneesh Mohammad and Zubeda, without summoning the complainant. The complainant made enquiries and came toHknow about the forgery. The complainant was being threatened;hence, he made a complaint to take action against AneeshMohammad and Zubeda.

3. The police did not take any action on the complaint, and the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under section166A (b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

4. Learned trial Court held that the complainant had filed a complaint for cheating and forgery, which are not covered under section 166A of the IPC. An action can only be taken regarding the offences specified in section 166A of the IPC. No case for summoning any person was made out; hence, thecomplaint was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court, the complainant has filed the present revision asserting that the learned trial Court erred in interpreting the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs Govt of UP and o thers (2014) 2 SCC 1, which provided for the mandatory registration of the FIR in case of disclosure of a cognizable offence. Hence, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court be setaside.

6. Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the police to register the FIR in Lalita Kumari (supra) if a cognizable offence is disclosed. The police violated the mandatory direction, and the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint. Hence, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned trialCourt be set aside.

7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the recordscarefully.

8. It was laid dowrn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that a revisional court can only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction orthe law. It was observed at page 207-

“10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent i findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short “CrPC”) vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court.