The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of law and the quashment of F.I.R. based on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. The present petition is being filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of F.I.R. and other criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 2 in F.I.R. at Crime No. 238/2019 of Police Station Kotwali, District Gwalior, for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

2. It is submitted that a complaint has been field by the respondent on 05.06.2019 before the Police Station Kotwali, District Gwalior against the petitioner on the basis of which present F.I.R. was got registered. It is pointed out that with respect to the dispute in question, the allegation which has been levelled against the petitioner is that he got executed a forged sale deed in his favour from the power of attorney and on that allegation, the F.I.R. was registered. It is pointed out that with respect to the sale deed in question a Civil Suit has already been filed in the year 2012 and the same is pending consideration.

3. The respondent No.2 on earlier occasion had tried to get registered an F.I.R. against the petitioner in the year 2016 but he was not successful in getting the F.I.R. registered, therefore, he preferred an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which was heard and finally decided vide order dated 04.05.2017 and the complaint filed by the petitioner was not found to be genuine and was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 04.05.2017. The aforesaid order was put to challenge by the petitioner by filing a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Court which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 281/2017 and after detailed arguments into the matter and after going through the records, the learned Sessions Judge has also dismissed the revision vide order dated 19.03.2018. No challenge was made to the aforesaid order by the petitioner and the same has attained finality. Thereafter, again by suppressing all the aforesaid material information the petitioner has preferred a complaint in the year 2019 and the Police authorities, P.S. Lashkar, Gwalior, has got an F.I.R. registered at Crime No. 238/2019 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the verbatim of the F.I.R. and has argued that from the perusal of the F.I.R. no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC is made against the petitioner as he is a bonafide purchaser of the property in question by paying the consideration amount he has purchased the property from one power of attorney holder Ramroop Singh Parihar. It is not disputed that the power of attorney holder has executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and consideration amount was already paid to the petitioner. Thus, no offence of cheating and making forgery in the documents is made out against the petitioner.

5. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that petitioner has not taken due care and caution to get the enquiry done prior to getting the sale deed executed. In such circumstances, the aforesaid offences is made out against the petitioner but the fact remains that no act has been reflected from the F.I.R. which could entail the act of the petitioner to fall under the purview of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. It is further argued that a civil case is tried to be given a colour of criminal case and such act of the registration of the F.I.R. against the petitioner clearly amounts to abuse of process of law as the respondent No. 2 is well aware of the civil proceedings pending before the authorities and even after dismissal of its private complaint and subsequent criminal revision by suppressing all the aforesaid material information to get the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed.

6. He has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others as reported in (2009) Vol. 8 SCC 751 and has argued that exactly in similar circumstances, the Hon'b