Disposed

Mahesh Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jun 2021WPCR/168/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of the writ petition for registration of FIR in a land encroachment dispute. It directed the petitioner to file a private complaint before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C., clarifying no opinion was expressed on the merits of the criminal allegations.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioner is granted liberty to file a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate.

Mahesh Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPCR No. 168 of 2019

¶5

Mahesh Shukla, S/o Shri Surayapal Shukla, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Boirdadar, Raigarh, Disrtict- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Principal Secretary Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

The Superintendent of Police Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶10

The Station House Officer, Police Station- Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶11

Sita Devi Pandey, W/o Chandrashekar Pandey, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Boirdadar, Raigarh, Tehsil & District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Adv. For State/respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Dy. G.A.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

17.06.2021

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for registration of FIR against respondent No. 4 for committing offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of I.P.C.

¶18

The brief facts as projected by the petitioner in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is title holder and possession holder of land bearing Survey No. 66, plot No. 33, situated at Boirdadar, District- Raigarh. In the year 2011, respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code before

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

Tahsildar, Raigarh stating that he is having plot at Boirdadar, District- Raigarh in Patwari Circle No. 13, Survey No. 66, Plot No. 33 and the petitioner has encroached over 200 sq.ft. of plot of the petitioner. She requested to remove the encroachment of the petitioner. She has also filed sale deed. According to the sale deed, area has been manipulated from 3900 sq.ft. to 9900 sq.ft. On the basis of forged document, respondent No. 4 has attempted to disposes the petitioner, as such, he made a complaint before respondent No. 3 on 20.12.2018, but no action has been taken, therefore, he made complaint before respondent No. 2 on 15.02.2019, but no action has been taken, as such, he has filed the present writ petition with prayer to register FIR against respondent No. 4.

¶21

On the above factual matrix, the petitioner has prayed for registration of FIR against respondent No. 4- Sita Devi Pandey for committing offence under Section 420, 465, 468, 471 of I.P.C.

¶22

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others¹ , has examined the issue holding that the petitioner has remedy of filing of complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has again considered and decided the issue in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage² and M. Subramaniam & another Vs. S. Janaki & another³ .

¶23

Considering the facts and materials on record and in light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class having jurisdiction over the place of offence and in-turn Magistrate will

¶24