6 min readNew DelhiMar 18, 2026 12:58 PM ISTThe prosecution has thus failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, the Chhattisgarh High Court stated. (Image generated using AI)Chhattisgarh High Court news: Cautioning against the growing misuse of criminal law for “vested interests” and “oblique motives,” the Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to revive a decades-old land fraud prosecution, holding that courts must remain vigilant and nip such attempts “in the bud” while upholding the acquittal of the accused.A bench of Justices Rajani Dubey and Radhakishan Agrawal rejected an appeal filed by the state challenging the acquittal of four accused persons in an alleged land fraud case dating back to 1999 by a special court in Durg in July 2017, which had acquitted the accused of charges including criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.“We find that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud,” the high court said on March 16, referring to a Supreme Court verdict.Also Read | ‘Stalking, saying I love you to girl, sexual harassment’: Chhattisgarh High Court upholds man’s POCSO convictionMisuse of criminal justice systemThe court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused.We are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Justices Rajani Dubey and Radhakishan Agrawal rejected an appeal filed by the state challenging the acquittal of four accused persons in the case dating back to 1999.Principles governing pleas against acquittalThere is a complete absence of cogent, reliable, and legally admissible evidence to demonstrate any prior meeting of minds constituting conspiracy, any act of fabrication of documents, or any misuse of official position by the accused persons for wrongful gain.Mere execution of sale deeds, by itself, does not constitute proof of criminal intent or establish the existence of a conspiracy.The prosecution has thus failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.The chain of circumstances is not only incomplete, but fundamentally deficient, giving rise to serious doubts.The trial court, upon a thorough and meticulous appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, has rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of conspiracy, fabrication or abuse of official position.The finding of acquittal is well-reasoned, legally sound, and does not suffer from any perversity or misappreciation of evidence, warranting no interference in appeal.Also Read | Can a late adoption deed help secure compassionate appointment? Chhattisgarh High Court rejects claim over 22-year delayNo evidence of criminal intentRejecting the state’s appeal, the high court found critical gaps in the prosecution’s case, particularly the absence of evidence establishing conspiracy, forgery, or dishonest intent.The bench noted that the prosecution failed to prove any “meeting of minds” necessary to establish criminal conspiracy.There was no evidence of fabrication of documents.Mere execution of sale deeds did not amount to criminal wrongdoing.Significantly, the court relied on testimony from the prosecution’s own witness, a stamp authority, who confirmed that stamp duty in all transactions had been assessed treating the land as agricultural.“This admission strikes at the very foundation of the prosecution story and renders the allegation of misrepresentation wholly unsubstantiated,” the court observed.Alleged fraudulent sale of landThe case arose from a complaint filed in 1999 alleging that officials of a cooperative housing society, along with a contractor and revenue inspectors, had conspired to illegally sell 6.53 acres of land in Padumnagar, Durg district, to multiple purchasers.According to the prosecution, the accused misrepresented the land as agricultural, despite it belonging to the Chhattisgarh Vikas Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti, thereby facilitating unlawful transactions and causing financial loss to society.Following an investigation by the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), a chargesheet was filed under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), and 467 (forgery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.Also Read | Upholding survivor’s ‘right to be heard’, Kerala High Court sets aside bail granted in POCSO case, directs accused to surrenderTrial court acquittal, state’s appealAfter the trial, the special judge in Durg acquitted all the accused in 2017, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Challenging this acquittal, the state argued before the high court that the trial court had ignored material evidence and adopted a “hyper-technical approach,” despite clear indications of conspiracy and abuse of official position.Reliance on Supreme Court precedentsThe high court drew extensively from recent Supreme Court rulings to reiterate that criminal liability requires clear proof of intent and cannot be inferred from mere irregularities.Citing precedents, the bench emphasised that forgery charges require proof that the accused actually created false documents.Cheating must involve dishonest intention at the outset.Criminal prosecution should not be used as a tool for harassment or private vendetta.ConclusionDismissing the state’s appeal, the court held that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the acquittal was based on a sound appreciation of the evidence.The ruling reinforces judicial caution against criminalising civil or administrative disputes and signals a stricter scrutiny of prosecutions that may be driven by ulterior motives rather than genuine criminality.Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd