The Court declined to quash the FIR at the pre-arrest stage, noting a disputed question of fact regarding possession of land. The investigation was directed to be completed within six weeks, and interim relief to petitioners continued.
Interim relief continued; investigation directed to complete within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 48 of 2020
| ---- Petitioners | |
|---|---|
| Versus |
---Respondents
| ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners :Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For the Respondent No.1/State :Mr. Hari Om Rai, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 :Mr. Hafiz Ali BegMirza, Advocate |
|---|
| Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal |
|---|
| Order on Board |
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.07.2024
2
with his brothers Hafiz Ali, Hanif Ali and others. He cultivated the same by sowing seeds of 1010, 1001 paddy, which was ripe up for its harvesting but on 01.12.2019 the present petitioners have taken the paddy grown-up by him and thereby committed theft of paddy crop. It is also reported that the present petitioners again tried to commit theft of his paddy crop. On the report made by respondent No.2 the offence has been registered against the petitioners and investigation is going on.
3
submit that he has filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioners before the Court of learned Second Civil Judge Class-1, Mungeli vide Civil suit No.46-A/2015, in which the present petitioners have filed their counter claim for permanent injunction against the present respondent No.2 and by its judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019 in the said civil suit, the claim of the present petitioners have been denied and held that the present petitioners are not in possession of the land in dispute. It has been settled by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court that the present petitioners are not in possession of the land in question. He would further submit that earlier also when the present petitioners have committed theft of crop of the respondent No.2, he moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR against them and inquiry into the matter was conducted and the said application was disposed of on the ground that the FIR has already been registered earlier in the year 2014. He would also submit that the against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in the Civil Suit, he has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Court which is pending for consideration.
4
documents annexed with the petition.
Sd/Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
vaishali
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR for theft and criminal trespass involving disputed land possession is liable to be quashed at this stage?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nazeer Sultana
Shahid Ahmad
Nazma Begum
State of Chhattisgarh
Hafiz Ali Beg Mirza
Ramesh Sinha
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
