Writ petition filed challenging the dismissal of a Section 156(3) CrPC application seeking registration of a complaint regarding alleged cheating and non-payment of compensation share in land acquisition. The High Court found areas mismatched and no proof of cheating, dismissing the petition as devoid of merit.
Writ petition dismissed; no order/costs.
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
2025:CGHC:9055-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2025.02.22 10:34:09 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 70 of 2025
Inda Bai D/o Jagannath Aged About 38 Years Caste Nai, R/o Gram Rahangi, Tahsil- Bilha, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Mathura Prashad (Dead) S/o Jagannath Prashad Aged About 55 Years
2 - Rajkumar S/o Jagannath Prashad Aged About 34 Years R/o Gram Rahangi, Tahsil- Bilha District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Chakarbhata, Police Station In Charge Chakarbhata District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
4 - Superintendence Of Police District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
5 - Lakshan Bai W/o Late Mathura Prashad Aged About 52 Years R/o Gram Rahangi, Tahsil- Bilha, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
6 - Jitendra Shrivas S/o Late Mathura Prashad Aged About 34 Years R/o Gram Rahangi, Tahsil- Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Dharmendra Shrivas S/o Late Mathura Prashad Aged About 35 Years R/o Gram Rahangi, Tahsil- Bilha, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Triveni Bai W/o Late Suresh Shrivas Aged About 33 Years R/o Gram Piperkhunti, Post Parshada, Tahsil- Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
9 - Luv Kumar Shrivas S/o Rama Shrivas Aged About 38 Years Gram Rahangi, Thana-Chakarbhata Tahsil-Bilha, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Power Of Attorney)
2
10 - Jitendra Paswani S/o Sundar Das Paswani Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Nagar Panchayat Bodri, Chakarbhata Camp, ThanaChakarbhata, Tahsil- Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
11 - Rajkumari W/o Laxman Shrivas Aged About 45 Years R/o Madanpur, Post Kodwa, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 12 - Binda Bai W/o Late Vishwanath Aged About 48 Years R/o Gram Limha, Post Gidha, Tahsil And District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) 13 - Dharamdas S/o Arjun Das Aged About 42 Years R/o Indira Gandhi Ward No. 12, Nagar Panchayat Bodri, Chakarbhata Camp, ThanaChakarbhata, Tahsil- Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr.Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, Government Advocate No.3 and 4/State
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
21.02.2025
1 . When the case is called out for hearing, Mr.Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel, is present in the Court and his name has also been published in cause list, but he has expressed his inablity to argue the matter and stated that the matter will be argued by Ms.Poona Luniya, who is not present in the Court. This is a special Bench constituted for hearing the present matter and arguing counsel is not present to argue the matter and adjournment is sought though Mr.Sachin Nidhi, Advocate, is also the counsel in the present matter as he has filed his Power for arguing the matter. The Court deprecates this practice and gesture of learned
3
counsel for the petitioner. Thus, the Court proceeds to examine the matter on the pleadings and prayer made in this petition. However, Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.3 and 4/State, is present.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondents No.1 & 2 are brother and sister, the suit land originally belonged to the petitioner's father and respondents No. 1 & 2. After the death of the father of the
4
petitioner, respondent no 1 & 2(brothers of petitioner) got the suit land transferred in their name, and intended to sell the suit land. The petitioner moved an application for the declaration, partition & possession of suit land before learned Civil Judge Class II, Bilha, District Bilaspur vide Civil Suit No. 12 A/2010. The learned civil Court vide its order judgment and decree dated 01/01/2011 allowed the application and ordered that the petitioner is the owner of 1/5th partition of the suit land situated at Khasra no. 778/2, 855/1,1205/5 admeasuring area 0.24,0.54 & 0.05 acres respectively.
4 . Respondents No.1 and 2 moved an appeal before learned First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur registered as Civil Appeal No. 18A/13, against the judgment & decree passed by learned Civil Judge Class II Bilha, which was dismissed by learned appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 11/08/2015. During the pendency of the mutation procedure before the Revenue Court, respondents No. 1 and 2 proposed Sub Registrar Bilha to sell some portions of suit land bearing khasra no. 778/2 to respondent No.6 by executing a power of attorney under the name of respondent No.9, upon knowledge of the respondent's such act, the petitioner objected to the same before the Sb-Registrar, Bilha on 09/01/2018. On 30/01/2018, the respondents by deceiving the petitioner sold 43 decimal of land from the land bearing Khasra No. 855/1 admeasuring a total area of 0.54 acres. Even after the objection made by the petitioner on 15/02/2018 the Sub-Registrar, Bilha registered a sale deed in the favour of respondent No. 06 by executing a power of attorney under the name of respondent No. 09. On
5
30/06/2018, in compliance of judgment dated 01/01/2011, the Tahsildar Bilha ordered for inclusion of allotted land in the name of the petitioner afresh. On 06/09/2019 the SDO Bilha also rejected the appeal preferred by respondent No. 09 against the order of Tahsildar Bilha dated 30/06/2018 and it was ordered to provide 0.048 acres of land out of 0.24 acres of khasra no.778/2 is to be provided to the petitioner.
5 . On 08/04/2021 for the wilful and fraudulent act by the respondent, in selling some portion of suit land despite having knowledge of pendency of procedure of mutation, the petitioner complained the same before Police Station, Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur and also before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur dated 31/05/2021, but FIR was not registered. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner preferred an application under section 156(3) CrPC before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha, wherein it was specifically mentioned that even after order of the Civil Judge Class II, Bilha adjudicating that the petitioner being the rightful owner of 1/5th portion of the suit land vide it's judgment dated 01/01/2011, the respondents after knowing the same, fraudulently consumed the entire compensation amount totalling to Rupees 1,34,680/- obtained by state under land acquisition of land bearing khasra no. 1205/5 admeasuring 0.05 acres of land and the share of same was not provided to the petitioner. Application preferred by the petitioner under Section 156(3) CrPC was rejected by learned JMFC, Bilha, Bilaspur vide order dated 10/03/2022. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred revision before 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) which was also rejected vide impugned order
6
dated 6/08/2024. Hence, this petition on the following grounds.
7 . In the present case, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha, which was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha in unregistered criminal complaint case, against which the petitioner has preferred criminal revision which was also dismissed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur affirming the order passed by the JMFC, Bilha.
8 . Considering the pleadings made in this petition and also considering the finding recorded by the trial Court while rejecting the application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner has submitted compensation bill sheet and land acqusition form 13 along with the case, in which the area of the acquired land has been stated as khasra No.1205/5, 0.15 acre in an acre and 0.061 acre in a hectare, whereas in the civil suit, the area of the suit land khasra No.1205/5 has been stated as only 0.05 acre. In this way, when the area of the acquired land is more than the suit land and whose land is the said additional land, it is not clear in the application and also held that there is no evidence on record to the effect that the petitioner has been cheated in any way by the respondents and the order passed by the trial Court has been affirmed by the revisional Court in revision, we are of the considered view that both the Courts have not committed any illegality or irregularity
7
warranting interference by this Court.
9 . Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/- Sd
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the trial and revisional courts in rejecting the Section 156(3) CrPC application warrants interference by this Court.
Whether the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Inda Bai
Mathura Prashad (Dead)
Rajkumar
State Of Chhattisgarh
Superintendence Of Police
Lakshan Bai
Ramesh Sinha
Bibhu Datta Guru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
