Chattisgarh High Court
Satyendra Bhardwaj vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
CGHC010086082026 2026:CGHC:29272-DB
NAFR
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.07.13
17:17:24
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 678 of 2026
Satyendra Bhardwaj S/o Late Basant Kumar Bhardwaj Aged About 50
Years R/o Aghariya Para Ward No. 10 Jawalpur Distt. Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- SHO Pamgarh Police Station
Mulmula Distt. Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh)
2 - Jageshwar Prasad Tandan S/o Bhagatram Tandan Aged About 32
Years R/o Pamgarh Tahsil Pamgarh District Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh
3 - Devendra Chaudhary Then SDM (Revenue) Pamgarh District
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
4 - Karuna Aher Then Tahsildar Pamgarh, Tahsil Office Pamgarh District
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government
Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
13.07.2026
1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing
for the State/respondent No.1.
2
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief(s):-
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may
be pleased to allow the application by making an
order to quash the FIR no. 30/2026 dated
13.01.2026 for offence 420 467 468, 471, 34 of
IPC pending before police station Mulmula as
crime no. 30/2026 and discharge from the case
to the applicant.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
impugned First Information Report has been registered in a wholly
mechanical and arbitrary manner without any independent application of
mind by the police authorities. It is contended that the petitioner, while
serving as Patwari in Village Mulmula between the years 2016 and
2021, had merely discharged his official duties in accordance with the
revenue records and the orders passed by the competent Revenue
Court. The entire criminal prosecution has been initiated solely on the
basis of a communication issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Pamgarh, directing registration of an FIR, without any
departmental enquiry, preliminary verification or examination of the
relevant revenue records. It is argued that the police registered Crime
No. 30 of 2026 on the strength of the said communication without
conducting any independent inquiry to ascertain whether the ingredients
of the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code were at all made out against the petitioner.
3
4. Learned counsel would further submit that the very foundation of
the prosecution case is demonstrably erroneous and contrary to the
material available on record. Attention of the Court is invited to the
show-cause notice dated 29.10.2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), pursuant to which the petitioner appeared before the
competent authority and recorded his detailed statement. In his
statement, the petitioner categorically explained that the correction
directed by the Revenue Court in Revenue Case No.124/B-121/2015-16
had already been incorporated in the manual revenue records and that
the concerned Khasra numbers stood recorded as Government land in
the Khasra Panchshala. The petitioner specifically stated that he had no
role whatsoever in making or altering entries in the online Bhuiyan
portal and that he had no knowledge as to how the name of Prafulla
came to be reflected in the online records. He further pointed out that
the B-1, Kisan Kitab and other documents allegedly submitted before
Axis Bank did not bear his signatures and that the signatures appearing
thereon were forged. Despite these categorical assertions, supported by
the revenue records themselves, the authorities proceeded to implicate
the petitioner without conducting any investigation regarding the alleged
forgery or identifying the person who had actually manipulated the
online records.
5. It is next contended that the entire revenue record continues to
reflect the disputed land as Government land and there is no material
whatsoever indicating that the petitioner either derived any benefit from
the alleged transaction or participated in any conspiracy with the
4
principal accused, namely Prafulla and others, who are alleged to have
obtained the loan by producing forged documents. Learned counsel
submits that the investigation report itself attributes the illegal mortgage
and fraudulent loan transaction to the private accused, while the
petitioner has been roped in merely because he happened to be the
Patwari of the concerned Halka during the relevant period. There is no
allegation that the petitioner prepared or signed any forged document,
altered any official record, presented any false document before the
bank, or facilitated the sanction of the loan. The essential ingredients
constituting the offences of cheating, forgery, use of forged documents
or common intention are therefore completely absent insofar as the
petitioner is concerned. At best, the allegations relate to discharge of
official functions, for which the authorities were required to examine the
matter departmentally before initiating criminal prosecution.
6. Learned counsel would lastly contend that the continuation of the
criminal proceedings amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. It
is argued that the petitioner has been prosecuted for acts allegedly
performed in the course of discharge of his official duties without
obtaining the mandatory sanction under Section 197 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the police have acted in
complete disregard of the settled principles governing registration and
investigation of criminal cases against public servants and have also
failed to adhere to the safeguards laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. According to learned counsel,
even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their
5
entirety, they do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence
by the petitioner nor establish his involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
The FIR has been lodged on the basis of mere suspicion, conjectures
and administrative correspondence, without any legally admissible
material connecting the petitioner with the alleged forgery or fraudulent
mortgage transaction. It is, therefore, submitted that allowing the
criminal proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of the process
of Court, warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential criminal
proceedings.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the
impugned FIR has been registered pursuant to a detailed inquiry
conducted by the competent revenue authorities on the basis of
repeated complaints made by one Amardas Khande regarding illegal
mutation and mortgage of Government land bearing Khasra Nos. 4/6
and 4/12 situated at Village Mulmula. During the inquiry, it was found
that although the land stood recorded as Government land in the
revenue records from the year 2016-17, the same came to be reflected
in the name of one Prafulla, son of Ravindranath, in the revenue
records of the year 2020, on the strength of which he mortgaged the
land with Axis Bank, Dipka and obtained a loan of Rs.20,00,000/-. The
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), after considering the investigation
report and the material collected during inquiry, directed registration of
6
the FIR against all persons found involved in the alleged forgery and
fraudulent transaction.
8. Learned State counsel would further submit that during the course
of inquiry, the documents obtained from Axis Bank, including the B-1, P-
2 Kisan Kitab, Form-C and other loan papers, as well as the revenue
records, disclosed that the Government land had been fraudulently
shown in the name of the private borrower without any lawful
conveyance or registration. The inquiry further revealed that the land
was never transferred through any registered document, thereby
indicating manipulation of the revenue records. Since the revenue
entries reflecting the land in the name of the private individual were
made during the tenure of the then Halka Patwari, Shri Satyendra Singh
Bhardwaj, his role also surfaced during the inquiry, along with that of the
principal accused Prafulla and the co-applicant Mirza Yadav,
necessitating registration of the FIR for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC.
9. It is lastly submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR
disclose the commission of cognizable offences requiring a thorough
investigation. At the stage of registration of the FIR, the investigating
agency is only required to ascertain whether the information discloses
the commission of a cognizable offence and not to conclusively
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the investigation
is still at a nascent stage and the allegations involve forgery of
Government records, illegal mutation of Government land and
7
fraudulent procurement of a bank loan, the petitioner is not entitled to
invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the FIR, as the
disputed questions of fact can only be examined upon completion of
investigation.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record with utmost circumspection.
11. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal
proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint,
FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in
exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the
investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may
be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.).
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj
v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State
of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals
& Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC
(Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is
made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not
quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not
constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and
8
improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note
of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the
Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there
is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie
case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof
cannot be quashed.
13. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The
Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is
required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the
rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while
considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the
High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability,
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor
can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only
required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value,
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court
further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should
ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised
with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where
9
non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice.
14. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on
02.09.2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid
principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court
cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary
worth of the material collected during investigation. Unless all these
parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to
interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to
establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with
law.
15. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court
finds that the allegations contained in the First Information Report
cannot be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or wholly devoid
of substance so as to warrant exercise of the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. The FIR has
not been registered merely on the basis of bald allegations made by the
complainant. Rather, it has been lodged pursuant to an inquiry
conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pamgarh, on
complaints alleging fraudulent mutation of Government land bearing
Khasra Nos. 4/6 and 4/12, followed by illegal mortgage of the said land
with Axis Bank for obtaining a loan. The inquiry report records that
although the land stood recorded as Government land in the revenue
10
records from the year 2016-17, it was subsequently reflected in the
name of a private individual, namely Prafulla, son of Ravindranath, who
allegedly availed a loan by mortgaging the said land. During the inquiry,
documents were obtained from the concerned Bank and other revenue
authorities, whereafter the competent authority directed registration of
the FIR against the persons whose involvement prima facie surfaced.
Whether the allegations ultimately culminate in a successful prosecution
is a matter which falls within the domain of the investigating agency
and, if a final report is filed, the competent criminal Court.
16. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is
that he has been falsely implicated despite there being no material to
indicate his involvement in the alleged forgery or illegal mortgage of
Government land. It has been contended that the petitioner merely
discharged his official duties as Patwari, that the corrections directed by
the Revenue Court had already been incorporated in the manual
revenue records, and that he neither made any online mutation nor
signed the B-1, Kisan Kitab or other documents relied upon by the
borrower for obtaining the loan. This Court is unable to examine the
correctness of these factual assertions in proceedings under Section
528 of the BNSS. Whether the petitioner had any role in the alleged
manipulation of the revenue records, whether the online entries were
made by him or by some other person, whether the documents relied
upon by the Bank bear forged signatures, and whether he shared any
common intention with the other accused are all disputed questions of
fact requiring investigation and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at
11
this preliminary stage.
17. Equally untenable is the submission that the allegations contained
in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the
commission of any cognizable offence. A plain reading of the FIR
reveals specific allegations that Government land was illegally reflected
in the name of a private individual, who thereafter mortgaged the same
with a Bank for obtaining a substantial loan, and that during the inquiry
the role of the then Halka Patwari also surfaced. The correctness of
these allegations, the extent of the petitioner’s involvement and the
evidentiary value of the material collected during the inquiry are matters
to be examined during investigation. At this stage, the Court is only
required to ascertain whether the FIR discloses the commission of
cognizable offences and not whether the allegations are ultimately
capable of being proved beyond reasonable doubt.
18. The submission that the petitioner had no concern with the loan
transaction, derived no pecuniary benefit therefrom and that the
principal allegations are directed against Prafulla and other private
individuals also cannot constitute a ground for quashing the FIR. The
prosecution case is not founded solely upon the allegation that the
petitioner obtained the loan; rather, it is alleged that the illegal mutation
of Government land and the consequential mortgage were facilitated by
manipulation of the revenue records during the relevant period, in which
the role of the petitioner, being the then Halka Patwari, requires
investigation. Whether such allegations are ultimately substantiated by
12
legally admissible evidence is a matter that can be determined only
after completion of investigation and not in proceedings invoking the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
19. From a perusal of the FIR and the inquiry report forming its basis,
it cannot be said that the criminal law has been set in motion
mechanically or without any material whatsoever. The FIR itself
discloses that the competent revenue authority examined the revenue
records, obtained documents from Axis Bank, issued notices to the
borrower and co-applicant, and found prima facie material indicating
commission of offences relating to forgery, cheating and use of forged
documents before directing registration of the FIR. At this nascent stage
of investigation, this Court would be slow in stifling a legitimate
investigation by entering into disputed questions of fact or by
appreciating the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner.
20. Upon cumulative consideration of the allegations contained in the
FIR and the material referred to therein, this Court is satisfied that the
allegations, if taken at their face value and accepted for the limited
purpose of the present proceedings, disclose the commission of
cognizable offences requiring a fair and complete investigation. The
allegations cannot be characterised as inherently absurd, manifestly
frivolous or so improbable that no prudent person could reach a prima
facie conclusion regarding the commission of the alleged offences. As
reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the power to quash criminal proceedings should be
13
exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare
cases where the allegations fail to disclose any cognizable offence or
continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process
of law. The decision in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) also
reiterates that the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction,
ought not to undertake an appreciation of disputed questions of fact or
evaluate the defence of the accused at the threshold. Judged on the
aforesaid parameters, no exceptional circumstance is made out
warranting interference with the impugned FIR.
21. The defence projected by the petitioner, namely that he merely
performed his official duties, had no role in making the online entries,
that the signatures appearing on the loan documents are forged, that
sanction under Section 197 of the Code was necessary, and that he has
been falsely implicated on account of his previous posting, are all
matters constituting his defence. These contentions involve disputed
questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law, which cannot be
adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. The High
Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, does not conduct a mini
trial or adjudicate upon the correctness of rival factual claims.
22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case does not
fall within any of the categories illustratively carved out by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and
reaffirmed in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) warranting exercise
of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528
14
of the BNSS for quashing the impugned FIR. The allegations contained
in the FIR, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of
cognizable offences and call for a fair and complete investigation. The
petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly
dismissed. However, considering that the FIR was registered on
13.01.2026 and the investigation has remained pending for a
considerable period, it is directed that the Investigating Officer shall
proceed with the investigation diligently and conclude the same as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law,
without being influenced by any observation made herein. It is made
clear that the observations recorded in this order are confined solely to
the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS
and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
23. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
