Neelam Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:828-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2026.01.07 18:29:34 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

CRMP No. 25 of 2026

¶7

Neelam Toppo S/o. Late Carlus Toppo, Aged About 56 Years R/o. Lathbora, Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.) Present R/o. Vidhansabha Road, Saddu, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer- In Charge, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja C.G. 2 - Dev Singh Uike S/o. Late Lakshman Singh, Aged About 55 Years Nazul Officer, Collector Office, District Surguja C.G. Permanent R/o. Nihalpur, Pandariya, Kabirdham C.G.

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General No.1-State

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

7.1.2026

¶16

1. Heard Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1/State.

¶17

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:

¶18

2

¶19

“I. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioner.

¶20

II. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 0127/2024 registered on 11.03.2024 at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh filed under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶21

III. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet filed on dated 06.07.2024 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, Surguja, under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶22

IV. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure P/2) whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh has taken cognizance of the impugned Chargesheet and has registered the impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case no. 2347/2024 against the Petitioner under 420, 467, 468, 471 and section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶23

V. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also granted to the Petitioner.”

¶24

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that respondent No. 2/complainant, who is the present Nazul Officer, Ambikapur, submitted a written complaint at Police Station

¶25

3

¶26

Gandhinagar on the instructions of the District Collector, Surguja. The said complaint was based on an inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ambikapur, pursuant to an application submitted by one Kamal Singh, son of late Ram Babu Singh, a social worker and resident of Ambikapur. In the complaint, it was alleged that land situated at village Namnakala, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, bearing Plot No. 243/1, admeasuring 1.710 hectare, was fraudulently mutated in the name of co-accused Bansu Ram and thereafter sale deeds were executed in favour of other accused persons, resulting in illegal monetary gains amounting to crores of rupees, allegedly with the involvement of revenue officers/officials. The matter was examined by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), who recommended initiation of proceedings against the concerned revenue officials, including the petitioner and other persons involved in the transaction. Acting upon the said recommendation, the District Collector, Surguja, directed registration of an FIR and initiation of legal action against the petitioner, who was then posted as Nazul Officer. During investigation, the petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned trial Court, which was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing M.Cr.C.(A) No. 296/2024, which was allowed vide order dated 26.04.2024. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on 06.07.2024 against the petitioner and other accused persons for the

¶27

4

¶28

aforementioned offences. Subsequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and others. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that, while functioning as Nazul Officer, he passed an order of mutation dated 07.10.2022 in favour of coaccused Bansu Ram with respect to land bearing Khasra No. 243/1, area 1.170 hectare, village Namnakala, on an application filed under Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, after receiving reports from the Revenue Officer and Patwari and following the prescribed procedure.

¶29

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 or 120-B of the IPC is made out against the present petitioner. There is no substantive or independent evidence showing his involvement in any alleged fraudulent transaction, and the entire prosecution case against him is based on mere assumptions and memorandum statements of the co-accused, which by themselves do not constitute legal evidence. He further submits that the petitioner submits that he passed the order of mutation dated 07.10.2022 while discharging his official duties in judicial capacity as a Revenue Officer under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The mutation order was passed after following due procedure of law, on the basis of reports submitted by the Revenue Inspector and

¶30

5

¶31

the Patwari, which clearly indicated that the land in question was granted on lease to co-accused Bansu Ram as per lease deed dated 15.04.1968. There is no material to suggest that the order was passed with any mala fide intention or ulterior motive. He also submits that the entire dispute, at best, is civil in nature relating to land and revenue records, which has been given a criminal colour. Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would therefore amount to gross abuse of the process of law. The FIR has been registered in a mechanical and hasty manner without conducting any preliminary inquiry.

¶32

5. Learned Senior Advocate later submits that being a Revenue Officer empowered under Section 11 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, he was legally competent to pass the impugned order. Protection under Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act is also available, as the act complained of was done in discharge of official duties. In absence of any express allegation or evidence of fraud or conspiracy, criminal prosecution is barred in law. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , as reiterated in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 , has consistently held that where allegations do not disclose commission of any offence, or where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or amount to abuse of process, the High Court is empowered to quash such proceedings under Section

¶33

6

¶34

482 CrPC. The present case squarely falls within the said parameters, warranting interference by this Court. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and Criminal Case No.2347/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, impugned FIR, filing of the charge-sheet and order taking cognizance deserve to be quashed.

¶35

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1/Stater opposes the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and submits that the FIR prima facie discloses the cognizable offence. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition.

¶37

8. From perusal of the FIR, it transpires that respondent No. 2/complainant, who is the present Nazul Officer, Ambikapur, submitted a written complaint at Police Station Gandhinagar on the instructions of the District Collector, Surguja. The said complaint was based on an inquiry conducted by the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), Ambikapur, pursuant to an application submitted by one Kamal Singh, son of late Ram Babu Singh, a social worker and resident of Ambikapur. In the complaint, it was alleged that land situated at village Namnakala, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, bearing Plot No. 243/1,

¶38

7

¶39

admeasuring 1.710 hectare, was fraudulently mutated in the name of co-accused Bansu Ram and thereafter sale deeds were executed in favour of other accused persons, resulting in illegal monetary gains amounting to crores of rupees, allegedly with the involvement of revenue officers/officials. The matter was examined by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), who recommended initiation of proceedings against the concerned revenue officials, including the petitioner and other persons involved in the transaction. Acting upon the said recommendation, the District Collector, Surguja, directed registration of an FIR.

¶40

9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasised that though the court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.

¶41

10. In the instant case, from perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet,

¶42

8

¶43

prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC (Now Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings. Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not.

¶44

11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents appended with the petition and also considering the contents of the FIR and charge-sheet, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in this petition.

¶45

12. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶46

Sd/- Sd/-

¶47

(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶48

Bablu

Neelam Toppo v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Toppo v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Tikendra Sahu @ Tikesh @ Tinku

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Chhattisgarh Pension Kalyan Sangh Branch Raigarh

Bhola Yadav @ Dhanraj Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S. Awadhesh Singh Gautam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivchand Bariha Vs State of Chhattisgarh