Chattisgarh High Court
Shashikant Kurre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
CRMP No.2004 of 2025 &
other connected maters
2025:CGHC:36067-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL JHA
JHA Date:
2025.07.25
19:19:07
+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2004 of 2025
Uma Tiwari W/o Shri Kedar Tiwari Aged About 45 Years R/o Baghwa Talab,
Baas Depot, Raipura, P.S.- D.D. Nagar, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)
---Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary, General Administrative
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary, Revenue And Disaster
Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - District Magistrate Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Abhanpur, Tehsil - Abhanpur, District -
Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Tehsildar Abhanpur District- Raipur (C.G.).
6 - Superintendant Of Police Economic Offence Wings, Branch- Raipur,
Revenue And Civil District - Raipur (C.G.)
7 - Station House Officer Economic Offence Wing Raipur, Revenue And Civil,
District - Raipur (C.G.)
8 - Mahendra Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Radhe Shyam Agrawal Secretary
Of Shri Thakur Ramchandra Ji Swami, Jaitu Sao Math, Public Trust, Purani
Basti, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.). (Claiming To Be The So
Called Secretary Of The Above Public Trust).
9 - Satya Narayan Sharma Vice President Of Shri Thakur Ramchandra Ji
Swami, Jaitu Sao Math, Public Trust, Purani Basti, Raipur, Tehsil And District-
2
CRMP No.2004 of 2025 &
other connected maters
Raipur (C.G.). (Claiming To Be The So Called Vice President Of The Above
Public Trust).
10 - Nayab Tehsildar Gobra Nawa Para, Tehsil - Abhanpur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
Respondent(s)
CRMP No. 2324 of 2025
Shashikant Kurre S/o Shri Siyaram Kurre Aged About 38 Years R/o Posted As
Deputy Collector Korba, District- Korba (C.G.)
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administrative
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster
Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Collector Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Abhanpur, Tehsil - Abhanpur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Tehsildar Abhanpur District- Raipur (C.G.)
6 - Superintendant Of Police Economic Offence Wings, Branch- Raipur,
Revenue And Civil District- Raipur (C.G.)
7 - Station House Officer Economic Offence Wing Raipur, Revenue And Civil,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
8 - Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Chintaram Sahu R/o Village- Chandana,
Post- Bhendri, Tehsil- Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), Mobile No.
9753932200
9 - Hemant Dewangan R/o Ward No. 01, Nagar Panchayat- Magardol, District-
Dhamtari (C.G.), Mobile No. 8959298486 (This Much Of Details Of
Respondents No. 8 And 9 Is Known To The Petitioner).
10 - Nayab Tehsildar Gobra Nawa Para, Tehsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
Respondent(s)
3
CRMP No.2004 of 2025 &
other connected maters
CRMP No. 2326 of 2025
Lakheshwar Prasad Kiran S/o Shri Firturam Kiran, Aged About 53 Years
Posted As Additional Tehsildar, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, R/o.
Sarita Vihar Colony, Bahtarai, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administrative
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster
Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
3 - Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
5 - Tehsildar, Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
6 - Superintendent Of Police, Economic Offence Wings, Branch- Raipur,
Revenue And Civil District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
7 - Station House Officer, Economic Offence Wing Raipur, Revenue And
Civil, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
8 - Krishna Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Chintaram Sahu, R/o Village- Chandana,
Post- Bhendri, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) Mobile No.
9753932200
9 - Hemant Dewangan, R/o. Ward No. 01, Nagar Panchayat- Magardol,
District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) Mobile No. 8959298486.
10 - Nayab Tehsildar, Gobra Nawa Para, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Surfaraz Khan, Advocate
For State : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. Adv. Gen.
4
CRMP No.2004 of 2025 &
other connected maters
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25/07/2025
1. Since common facts and grounds as also the prayer clause involved in
these petitions, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by
this common order.
2. By these petitions under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioners would
seek quashment of FIR No. 30/2025 (Annexure-P/1) registered by the
CG Economic Offences Wings/ACB, Raipur for the offence under
Section 7 C of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections
120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, which has been registered in
respect of each of the petitioners.
Facts of the case :
3. (a) On the basis of the Inquiry Report and upon the directions of
Senior Superintendent of Police, EOW, by letter dated 17/04/2025, an
FIR has been lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW,
Raipur before the EOW, Raipur bearing FIR No. 30/2025 dated
23/04/2025, inter-alia, stating therein that for construction of the
reservoir of village Nayakbandha, Tahsil Abhanpur, the land already
acquired, and by again paying the compensation amount in crores in
respect of the same land, the accused persons committed serious
financial irregularities.
(b) According to the FIR, for construction of the reservoir of village
5
CRMP No.2004 of 2025 &
other connected maters
Nayakbandha, the government had acquired pre-settlement Khasra
number-461, 460, 459, current Khasra number-1592, 1588, 1589 area of
0.27 hectare, 0.13 hectare, 0.25 hectare land in the year 1959-60. Before
determining the compensation, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)
and Competent Authority Land Acquisition Abhanpur by order dated
14/05/2020 directed the Revenue Inspector Shri Roshan Lal Verma and
Shri Dinesh Patel Patwari for village Nayakbandha to examine the
proposal received from the Central Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, New Delhi, regarding land acquisition for Raipur-
Visakhapatnam National Highway widening under Bharatmala Project
and submit a report. In compliance of the same, the report has been
submitted by the Revenue Inspector and Patwari. In the said report, Shri
Roshan Lal Verma, Revenue Inspector and Patwari Shri Dinesh Patel
have not given information regarding land acquisition.
(c) However, the Tehsildar Abhanpur of Halka Patwari 23 village
Nayakbandha has sent a letter for information about correcting the
records regarding the land acquired for Nayakbandha reservoir. In this
way, the then Halka Patwari Shri Dinesh Patel and Revenue Inspector
Shri Roshal Lal Verma did not submit the report despite knowing about
the land acquisition. Since the record in the name of the reservoir is not
correct, the acquired land was resold and compensation was obtained.
As the said land falls under the Raipur-Vishakhapatnam proposed
Economic Corridor under the National Highway Bharatmala Project,
announced by the Government of India, the then Land Acquisition
6
CRMP No.2004 of 2025 &
other connected maters
Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer (R.) Abhanpur Nirbhay Kumar Sahu,
Revenue Inspector Roshan Lal Verma, the then Halka Patwari Dinesh
Patel, Village Kotwar Yashwant Kumar in connivance with Kamal
Narayan Chaturvediani, Lalit Chaturvediani, Mukesh Chaturvediani S/o
Shri Santram Chaturvediani, Lalit Baghel, Meena Bai, Usha
Chaturvediani, Meghraj Chaturvediani, Jharna Chaturvediani S/o Shri
Rekhram Chaturvediani, have been given them Rs. 69,89,840/ for
earlier acquired land bearing Khasra No. 1592 area 0.1300 hectare; and
a total of Rs. 1,04,82,762 /- in lieu of Khasra No. 1588/1,2,3,4 to
Tikamchand Rathi, Purushottam S/o Jhumarlal, Dinesh Tawari,
Nandkishore Tawari, Sawan Tawari, Hemant Tawari S/o Shri Bal
Kishan Tawari, Laldevi Tawari W/o Balkishan Tawari; and in lieu of
Khasra No. 1589 area 250 square meters, a deliberate fraud has been
committed with the government by paying compensation of Rs.
59,97,200 /- to Paras Kumar Chopra S/o Shri Sahasmal Chopra. The
said FIR has duly been accompanied by the Enquiry report dated
30/01/2024 (sic 30/01/2023) of the Additional Collector, Raipur.
Contentions of the parties :
4. CRMP No. 2004/2025 – The petitioner would contend that he has been
falsely roped in the instant crime. The instant FIR has been lodged
against the petitioner in an arbitrary and illegal manner. According to
the learned counsel, lodging of FIR against the petitioner amounted to
over reach the jurisdiction and proceedings prescribed under Section 7C
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120 B, 420, 467,
7
CRMP No.2004 of 2025 &
other connected maters
468 & 471 of the IPC because the petitioner has not committed any
crime as there is no material available on record. The implication of the
present petitioner without holding the proper inquiry is abuse of process
of law.
5. CRMP No. 2324/2025 – The petitioner would contend that he is a
victimized and has been falsely roped in the instant FIR. According to
the learned counsel, the Collector, Raipur has no such power for
conducting an inquiry in respect of order passed by the petitioner on
quasi judicial side as there is no provisions contained under the
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The entire exercise of
conducting an administrative enquiry is all together illegal.
6. CRMP No. 2326/2025 – The petitioner is a victimized and has been
falsely roped in the instant FIR. According to the learned counsel, the
Collector, Raipur has no such power for conducting an inquiry in
respect of order passed by the petitioner on quasi judicial side as there is
no provisions contained under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,
1959. The entire exercise of conducting an administrative enquiry is all
together illegal.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would oppose the
submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and submits that the
petitioners who are the Revenue Authorities has committed
misappropriation of public exchequer by playing fraud and by not
submitting proper report in respect of the land which have already been
8
CRMP No.2004 of 2025 &
other connected maters
acquired. On account of such illegality committed by the petitioners
whopping public exchequer, crores of rupees has been paid as
compensation to the land owner despite the fact that they are not entitled
to get the same. By playing such an fraudulent act, several lands owner
obtained undue advantage of excess compensation amount including the
petitioner in CRMP No. 2004/2025.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings
as well as FIR (Annexure-P/1).
Analysis :
9. Bare perusal of the FIR would show that the petitioner in CRMP No.
2234/2025 (Sashikant Kurre) who was the then Tehsildar, after
publication of notification under Section 3(a) and 3(d) of the subject
land prepared a fake and fabricated account and divided the land,
which has already been affected by land acquisition i.e. Case No. 32
A/27 year 2018-19 Nemu father Latelu, Village Nayakbandha; Case No.
33 A/27 year 2018-19 Hiraundi Bai Kosle, Village Nayakbandha; Case
No. 34 A/27 year 2018-19 Ashok Kumar, Village Nayakbandha; Case
No. 36 A/27 year 2018-19 Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Village Nayakbandha;
and Case No. 07 A/27 year 2019-20 Arun Kumar, Village Urla.
10. Similarly, the Petitioner in CRMP No. 2326/2025 (Lakheshwar Prasad
Kiran), who was the then Additional Tehsildar, after publication of
notification 3 (a) and 3 (d) of the subject land, prepared a fake and
forged account and divided the land which has already been affected by
9
CRMP No.2004 of 2025 &
other connected maters
land acquisition cases i.e. case No. 49 A/27 year 2018-19 Chuneshwar
father Virjhu, village Tokaro; case No. 51 A/27 year 2019-20 Ishwar
‘father Nanku, village Tokaro; case No. 52 A/27 year 2018-19 Ram Asra
father Bhukhau, village Tokaro; and case No. 1 A/27 year 2020-21
Manharan Sahu, village Tokaro.
11. As far as Petitioner in CRMP No. 2004/2025 (Uma Tiwari) is
concerned, it has been found that she was married to Kedar Tiwari of
village Ruse, District Bilaspur in the year 1995-96. Kedar Tiwari
husband of the present petitioner, after coming in contact with other co-
accused Vijay Jain and Harmeet Singh Khanuja, an application was
presented before Naib Tehsildar Gobra Navapara on 24.11.2018, in
which it was mentioned that she was adopted daughter of Late
Vishwanath Pandey and is only heir. In the name of Thakur Ramchandra
Swami Temple Jaitusav Math, Village Ugetara, Pahanam, land bearing
Khasra no. 142, 759, 760 registered in the revenue records of Tehsil
Gobra Navapara area admeasuring 6.100 hectares. Khasra No. 940, area
3.35 hectares, Khasra No. 241 Area 0.08 Ha., Khasra No. 195 area is
0.09. Total area is 9.26 Hectares. An application was submitted to
transfer the land registered in the name of Temple Trust in the name of
the present petitioner by claiming that the said land was in her
possession being the legal heir of Late Vishwanath Pandey. In the
investigation, it was found that on the basis of a forged document, the
land compensation amount of Rs.2,13,28,568/- was given to the
petitioner in connivance with the other petitioners and accused.
10
CRMP No.2004 of 2025 &
other connected maters
12. It is noteworthy to mention here that the powers possessed under
Section 482 (528 BNSS) are very wide and the very plenitude of the
power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful
to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound
principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. The Court should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and
hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced
before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient
material.
13. Be that as it may, it is settled propositions that the Court in ordinary
course should not invoke its powers to quash such proceedings except in
rare and compelling circumstances. It is also well settled propositions
that quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C (528
BNSS) is permissible only if the complaint does not disclose any
offence or the same is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, which in the
present case does not come out.
14. The Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others), has
observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an
F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire
about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made
11
CRMP No.2004 of 2025 &
other connected maters
in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious.
The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to
quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the
allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence
and is not required to consider the case on merit.
15. It has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the
proceedings relating to cognizable ofences cannot be interfered except on
certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is
evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of
Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2
SCC 779, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information
given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable offence, there is no
other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not
relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to be seen is
merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a
cognizable offence.
16. As an upshot, all the petitions, being bereft of merit, are liable to be and are
hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Rahul/Gowri