Dismissed¶13

Rakesh Kumar Tamrakar v. Sardar Jagir Singh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Nov 2025CRMP/2577/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRMP No. 2577 of 2023, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 12/11/2025 by Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; S.482 CrPC petition by Rakesh Kumar Tamrakar v. Sardar Jagir Singh and Gurudwara Gurusingh Sabha (Chairman Harmeet Singh Bhatia), Durg; sought quashing of JMFC Durg order dated 26/11/2022 rejecting S.156(3) complaint (MJC Cri./4437/2022) seeking FIR under ss.420/467/468/471/120-B IPC for donation deed executed via power of attorney dated 18.05.1994 after executants' death, and of 8th Addl. Sessions Judge Durg revision order dated 24/05/2023 (Criminal Revision No. 31/2023); held purely civil dispute, no infirmity or jurisdictional error; petition dismissed, no costs; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

This Court considered the matter to be purely civil in nature. ¶12

Rakesh Kumar Tamrakar Vs Sardar Jagir Singh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:55055

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 2577 of 2023

¶6

Rakesh Kumar Tamrakar S/o. Late Rohitasva Tamrakar, Aged About 52 Years R/o. 64, Sharda Talkies Road, Moti Para, Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Sardar Jagir Singh S/o. Charan Singh, Aged About 70 Years R/o. Ward No.24, Mohan Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Gurudwara - Gurusingh Sabha Gurudwara Road, Durg, Through Chairman - Harmeet Singh Bhatia, S/o. Ravel Singh Bhatia, R/o. Ward No.37 Ravel Singh Petrol Pump, Pulgaon Naka, Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board

¶15

12/11/2025

¶16

The matter is heard finally.

¶17

This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 24/05/2023, passed by Learned Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District-Durg in

¶18

¶19

Criminal Revision No. 31/2023, whereby the petitioner assailed the order dated 26/11/2022, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg, rejecting his criminal complaint (MJC Cri./4437/2022 Filing Number) against the respondent no. 1 and 2, the revisional court has affirmed the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg and has rejected the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner herein. The petition is thus preferred challenging the order passed by the Court below and seeking kind indulgence of this Court by quashing the order passed by the learned court below and directing the learned court below to proceed in the complaint filed by the petitioner and punish accordingly.

¶20

Brief facts of this case are that the Petitioner's father namely Late Rohitasva Tamrakar and his brothers namely Ramkishun Tamrakar, Purushottam Ramkumar Tamrakar and Gaind Singh @ Balkishan Tamrakar were the son of Late Madhosao Tamrakar. In the name of Madhosao Tamrakar a property of which he was the owner situated at Durg Patwari Halka Number 16/24, Revenue Circle Durg 1, Gayatri Mandir, Ward No. 25, bearing Khasra number 1176 admeasuring 0.50 D was registered in the revenue records. The father of the petitioner and his brothers executed a registered power of attorney of the above-mentioned subject land in the name of Respondent No. 1/ Sardar Jagir Singh after which the said land was sold without giving any consideration to the registered owner of the property. In this series on 13.12.2017 form the

¶21

¶22

subject land a part of land admeasuring 13,266 Sq. Ft. land measuring 99 x 134 13,266 Sq. Ft. which shared boundaries with gurudwara in North, Sount and East. The Respondent No. 1 by illegally using the power of attorney dated 18.05.1994 and further stating that the executor of the power of attorney (i.e. Registered owner) is alive executed a donation deed valuing Rs 3, 74, 48000/-in favor of Respondent No. 2 ie. Gurudwara Shri Gurusingh Sabha through Chairman Shri Harmeet Singh Bhatia S/o Ravel Singh Bhatia. It is worthy to mention that the person who executed power of attorney in favor of Respondent No. 1 Namely Ramkumar Tamrakar died on 08.12.2018, Dr. Rohitasva Kumar Tamrakar Died on 29.09.2017 and Ramkishore Tamrakar died on 12.06.2014 as a result of which the said power of attorney stood revoked/ cancelled due to death of executants.

¶23

The respondent no. 1 by using the power of attorney and suppressing the material fact that the executants of the same has died executed a Donation Deed and has committed cheating thereby taken wrongful gain. In this regard the petitioner has given a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Durg but since no action was taken by them pursuant to the complaint.

¶24

The petitioner was constraint to file an Application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the Court below and prayed for registration of FIR against the respondents under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC and necessary action be taken against them.

¶25

¶26

After filing of the criminal complaint against the respondents, the learned trial court call for a preliminary enquiry report from the Police Station Mohan Nagar, the police authorities in compliance of the same has conducted a preliminary enquiry in which the statements of the parties were taken and the re-post was submitted before the learned court below. In the statement the respondents have stated that there was an agreement between them, and they have given consideration to the father of the petitioner and his brother. Further he has not taken any consideration for executing donation deed in favor of Gurudwara.

¶27

The learned court below after going through the contents of the complaint, perusing the preliminary enquiry report and after examination of witnesses, the learned court below came to a finding that after careful examination of the materials on record court is not inclined to entertain the compliant as prima facie there was no compliance under section 154(1) of Cr.P.C and the case in hand is purely civil dispute, further no evidence has been brought on record to prove the allegations and dismissed the criminal complaint in the preliminary stage.

¶28

Against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg the petitioner herein preferred criminal revision before the Learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg and after hearing the parties the learned court has dismissed the revision which is the order impugned herein and premised on the above set of facts the Petitioners hereby prefer this petition.

¶29

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is without application of mind and even considering the content of the criminal complaint which primafacie discloses commission of criminal offence. The impugned order passed by the learned court below is without application of mind because the learned magistrate is not to weight the evidence maliciously as if he were the trial court. The learned magistrate has to only see that the complaint prima facie discloses any commission of offence or not. The impugned order of learned court below is solely based upon the inquiry/ investigation as conducted by the police authorities which stated that the petitioner allegations are vague, and the instant case is purely civil dispute. But the learned court below has failed to consider the fact that the Donation Deed was executed supressing the material facts that the executants of the power of attorney have already died because of which the power attorney stood revoked. The learned court below was not under obligation to dismiss the complaint of the petitioner only on the basis of enquiry/investigation report. He further contended that the Learned Court below in utter disregard of the fact the complainant has sufficiently made out a prima facie case against the proposed accused persons and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction or not. The learned Court below failed to appreciate that the complainant has been harassed by the proposed accused persons by using their influence and the department and the police authorities are hand in gloves with the proposed accused person so as to save them. The complainant was

¶31

¶32

having no effective legal remedy except for filing the complaint against the proposed accused persons and the learned court below has committed error in summarily dismissing the complaint of the petitioner and the allegation levelled against the proposed accused persons are serious in nature and to dive into the veracity of the allegations levelled the learned court below ought to have directed the police authorities register an FIR against the proposed accused persons and investigate the matter. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be please to quash the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the 8^th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 31/2023 and Order dated 26.11.2022 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Durg and this Court may kindly be please remand the matter back to the learned court below (Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg) to register the complaint case and proceed in the complaint filed by the petitioner against the proposed accused persons in the interest of Justice.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondent supports impugned order and submits that impugned order is well merited and has been passed after considering the entire material available on record therefore, it is not a case to set aside of the impugned order, hence, the same may be dismissed.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and other material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶35

¶36

Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties. Further considering the fact that this matter purely related with the civil in nature, therefore, the orders passed by the 8^th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 31/2023 and Order dated 26.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District

¶37

Durg are true and correct manner. I do not find any infirmity and perversity and there is no jurisdictional error in the orders impugned.

¶38

Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶41

Vasant

Rakesh Kumar Tamrakar v. Sardar Jagir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Tamrakar v. Sardar Jagir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajoo and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Lal Dewangan (Wrongly Mentioned as Dewangan) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tikesh Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh