The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that the existence of a civil dispute over land title or possession cannot justify police inaction when clear cognizable offences such as criminal trespass, mischief, and forgery are disclosed. This judgment reinforces the mandatory duty of police to register FIRs under Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., irrespective of overlapping civil claims.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sonam Devi Thadwani, is the lawful owner of land bearing Khasra No. 150/14 in Mouza Amlidih, Raipur, acquired through a registered sale deed dated 20.10.2008. She obtained official mutation records confirming her ownership and constructed a pucca boundary wall with an iron gate. The private respondents - Barkha Rani Masih, Badal Kumar Dani, and Revenue Inspector Soni - allegedly manipulated boundary descriptions in revenue records to falsely claim ownership. On 12.03.2023, they forcibly broke the lock, demolished the boundary wall, and began unauthorized construction on the petitioner’s land.
Procedural History
The petitioner’s attempts to secure police action followed a clear but unsuccessful path:
- 28.03.2023: Written complaint lodged at PS New Rajendra Nagar; police refused to register FIR, recorded only a general diary entry citing "civil nature"
- 05.06.2023: Civil Court granted interim stay in favor of petitioner, recognizing her possession and sale deed
- 09.08.2023: Application under Section 175(3) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class; rejected on grounds of civil dispute
- 13.01.2026: Criminal revision dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge
- 2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking mandatory FIR registration
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing police to register FIR against private respondents for cognizable offences under Sections 331, 324, 223, 336, 340, 318(4), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging criminal trespass, mischief, forgery of public records, cheating, and criminal conspiracy.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the existence of a pending civil dispute over land title and possession absolves police of their mandatory duty to register an FIR when the facts disclosed multiple cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. to argue that registration of FIR is mandatory upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence, with no room for preliminary inquiry. He emphasized that the private respondents’ acts - demolition of boundary wall, illegal construction, and manipulation of revenue records - constituted independent criminal offences under Section 223 (contempt of court order), Section 331 (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 340 (criminal trespass), and Section 61(2) (forgery of public record). He contended that civil proceedings do not negate criminal liability, and police inaction violated Article 14 and Article 21.
For the Respondent
The State Counsel argued that the core dispute was one of title and possession, which was already sub-judice before the Civil Court. He submitted that the Magistrate and Sessions Judge had already examined the matter under Section 175(3) BNSS and declined to direct FIR registration. He further contended that the writ petition was an abuse of process, as an efficacious alternative remedy existed under criminal law, and the High Court should not interfere where lower courts had already adjudicated.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s ownership and possession as established by the sale deed and mutation records. It also noted the Civil Court’s interim order of 05.06.2023, which prima facie recognized the petitioner’s rights. However, the Court held that the existence of a civil dispute does not extinguish the possibility of criminal liability arising from the same facts.
"The fact that a civil dispute is pending before a competent court does not preclude the registration of an FIR for cognizable offences such as criminal trespass, mischief, or forgery of public records."
The Court recognized that Section 175(3) BNSS provides a statutory remedy to seek FIR registration, and the petitioner had availed it. Both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had rejected the application, and those orders had attained finality. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and not meant to substitute appellate or revisional remedies. It held that where a statutory remedy has been exhausted and rejected by competent criminal courts, the High Court cannot be invoked merely to re-agitate the same issue.
The Court further clarified that while the allegations of criminal conduct were serious, the appropriate forum to adjudicate them remains the criminal court system, not the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner retained the right to file a private complaint under Section 200 BNSS if the police continued to refuse registration.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that while the allegations of criminal offences were serious, the petitioner had already exhausted her statutory remedies under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the refusal to register an FIR had been judicially reviewed and upheld. The High Court declined to interfere under Article 226, affirming that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent final orders of criminal courts.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies Precludes Writ Intervention
- Practitioners must exhaust remedies under Section 175(3) BNSS and criminal revision before approaching High Court under Article 226 for FIR registration
- A dismissed application under Section 175(3) or criminal revision constitutes a final determination that bars subsequent writ petitions on the same grounds
- File a private complaint under Section 200 BNSS if police continue to refuse registration after judicial rejection
Civil Dispute Does Not Neutralize Criminal Liability
- Even where title or possession is disputed, acts like demolition of boundary walls, forced entry, and forgery of revenue records remain cognizable offences
- Police cannot refuse FIR registration on the ground of "civil nature" if the complaint discloses specific ingredients of Sections 331, 340, 61(2), or 223 BNSS
- Courts must distinguish between civil remedies (injunction, recovery) and criminal remedies (FIR, prosecution)
Judicial Stay Orders Carry Criminal Weight
- Violation of a civil court’s interim order under Section 223 BNSS is a standalone cognizable offence
- Petitioners should specifically plead violation of court order as a criminal act in FIR complaints
- Police must treat such violations as actionable, not merely as contempt to be addressed in civil proceedings
