Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Nandita Dubey, J.
Virendra Patel v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Writ Petition No. 5645 of 2023 (Jabalpur); Decided on 26.4.2023
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- interim order for not arresting or not taking coercive action -- investigation pending -- no such order can be passed. 2021 SCC Online SC 135 followed. [Para 16
(2) Practice -- availability of civil as well as criminal remedies -- even if civil remedy is availed, one is not precluded from setting in motion proceedings in criminal law -- remedies are not internally exclusive but co-extensive and essentially differ in their content, scope and import -- criminal prosecution cannot be quashed merely on ground that civil proceedings are pending. (2018) 3 SCC 104, AIR 1982 SC 949 and (2009) 4 SCC 439 followed. (2020) 4 SCC 552 referred to. [Paras 17 & 21
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 -- quashing of FIR -- allegations regarding forging of documents and acquiring gains on basis of such forged documents -- proceedings cannot be quashed only because respondents filed civil suit with respect to aforesaid documents -- in criminal Court, allegations have to be established independently, notwithstanding adjudication by civil Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1028 of 2001 decided on 11.10.2001 distinguished. [Para 18
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 -- quashing of FIR -- on basis of forged and concocted documents, despite selling land in question to someone else, petitioner entered into compromise as owner with two other persons when they filed suit for specific performance -- resulted in compromise decree in Lok Adalat and execution of sale deed -- case of cognizable offence made out -- further, Court cannot prejudge trial, especially when investigation is still incomplete. (2005) 13 SCC 540 followed. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, (2014) 2 SCC 1, (2002) 1 SCC 555 and W. P. No. 7744 of 2022 referred to. [Paras 23 & 24
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- scope of power -- save and except in very exceptional circumstances, Court could not look to any document relied upon by accused in support of his defence -- constitutional or inherent powers of quashing proceedings at initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only when allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie disclose commission of any offence. [Para 24
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 &&/kkjk 482 && fxjrkj ugha djus vFkok izihM+d dkjZokbZ ugha djus dk varfje vkns'k & vUos"k.k yafcr && ,slk dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 2021 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 135 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16
¼2½ izFkk && flfoy ds lkFk gh nkafMd mipkj Hkh miyC/k && flfoy mipkj dk ykHk ysus ij Hkh nkafMd fof/k dh dk;Zokgh pykus ls izokfjr ugha && mipkj vkarfjd :i ls vuU; ugha] vfirq] lg&foLr`r gSa rFkk mudh varoZLrq] O;kfIr vkSj vk'k; lkjr% fHkUu gSa && nkafMd vfHk;kstu ek= bl vk/kkj ij vfHk[kafMr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd flfoy dk;Zokgh yafcr gSA ¼2018½3 ,l lh lh 104] , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh 949 rFkk ¼2009½4 ,l lh lh 439 vuqlfjrA ¼2020½4 ,l lh lh 552 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 20
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 419] 420] 467] 468 rFkk 471 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kafMu && nLrkostksa dh dwVjpuk djus rFkk mu dwVjfpr nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij ykHk izkIr djus ds ckjs esa vfHkdFku &&dkZokgh ek= blfy, vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrh fd izR;FkhZx.k us iwoksZDr nLrkostksa ds rkjrE; esa flfoy okn izLrqr dj fn;k && nkafMd U;k;ky; esa vfHkdFku] flfoy U;k;ky; dk U;k;fu.kZ;u dqN Hkh gksrs gq, Hkh] Lora= :i ls fl) fd, tkuk gksrs gSaA nkafMd vihy Ø- 1028 lu~ 2001 fu.khZr fnukad 11-10-2001 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 18
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 419] 420] 467] 468 rFkk 471 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kafMu && nks vU; O;fDr;ksa }kjk fofufnZ"V ikyu gsrq okn fd, tkus ij ;kph us iz'uxr Hkwfe fdlh vU; O;fDr dks foØ; djus ds ckotwn] dwVjfpr vkSj xढ+s gq, nLrkostksa ds vkèkkj ij Lokeh ds :i esa muls le>kSrk fd;k && ifj.kkeLo:i yksd vnkyr esa le>kSrk fMØh gqbZ vkSj foØ; foys[k dk fu"iknu gqvk && laKs; vijk/k dk ekeyk curk gS && blds vfrfjDr] U;k;ky; fopkj.k esa iwoZ/kkj.kk ugha cuk ldrk] fo'ks"kr% tc vUos"k.k vHkh viw.kZ gSA ¼2005½13 ,l lh lh 540 vuqlfjrA 1992 lIyh- ¼1½ ,l lh lh 335] ¼2014½2 ,l lh lh 1] ¼2002½1 ,l lh lh 555 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 7744 lu~ 2022 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 23 ,oa 24
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 &&/kkjk 482 && 'kfDr dh O;kfIr && vR;f/kd vkiokfnd ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds flok;] U;k;ky; ,sls fdlh nLrkost dks ugha ns[k ldrk ftldk vkJ; vfHk;qDr }kjk viuh izfrj{kk ds leFkZu esa fy;k tk, && vkjafHkd izØe ij dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr djus dh lkafoèkkfud ;k varfuZfgr 'kfDr ferO;;rk ls rFkk dsoy rc iz;qDr dh tkuk pkfg, tc vfHkdFkuksa ls] mUgsa izdV ewY; ij fy;k tk, rc Hkh] izFken`"V~;k fdlh vijk/k dk fd;k tkuk izdV ugha gksrk gksA ¼iSjk 24
ORDER
1. This writ petition (criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking quashment of the FIR dated 20.1.2023 registered at Crime No.41/2023 for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and all the subsequent proceedings and for interim relief not to take any coercive action pursuant to the registration of FIR at Police Station Barela, district Jabalpur
2. The factual background giving rise to the present petition reveals that one Dilip Mehta (respondent No.2) lodged a written complaint against petitioner on 5.9.2022 at Barela Police Station stating therein that he is the owner of the property Khasra No. 279, area 1.66 hectares and khasra No.181, area 4.71 hectares, total area 6.37 hectares, situated at Saliwada, Jabalpur having purchased it by a registered sale deed dated 17.2.2016 from Mr. Bhagwan Singh Patel, husband of late owner Siyabai for a consideration of Rs. 3,15,00,000/-. It is further alleged that by using forged document claiming to be the owner, the petitioner had sold the said property to two other persons. On investigation it was found that the same property was earlier sold by petitioner on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney of late Siyabai to Girish Kuraiya on 12.6.2009 for a consideration of Rs.41,16,000/-, and later, on the basis of sale deed, the land was mutated in his name. Siyabai died in the year 2015. It is further alleged that the petitioner also prepared a bogus agreement to sale dated 21.1.2009 with Rakesh Gupta and Neeraj Jain with regard to the same land for a consideration of Rs.37,51,000/-. Rakesh Gupta and Neeraj Jain filed a suit for specific performance on 18.2.2022 before the competent Court, alleging that the petitioner has failed to execute the sale deed. On appearance of petitioner, parties entered into a compromise and on the basis of this compromise a decree came to be passed in Lok adalat and thereafter execution was filed for execution of the order dated 14.5.2022. The sale deed got registered on 25.7.2022 by the order of the Court and accordingly mutation was carried out on 12.8.2022, thereafter an application for possession was filed. It is alleged that petitioner Virendra Amgavarker, impersonated as Virendra Patel by using forged and bogus PAN Card and voter ID in the name of Virendra Patel, S/o Bhagwan Singh Patel for execution of the aforesaid documents and thereby cheated and caused financial loss to respondent No.2 and to one Girish Kuraiya. On the basis of this complaint, FIR came to be registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. against the petitioner.
3. Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court through various documents, filed with the writ petition to urge that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, whereas respondent No.2 is trying to give it a criminal colour. It is stated that petitioner is the adopted son of late Siya bai, the original owner of the disputed property, who not only executed a power of attorney in favour of petitioner on 29.11.2008 but also executed a Will (Annexure P-5) in his favour. The petitioner being power of attorney holder, executed a sale deed in favour of one Girish Kuraiya on 12.6.2009. An agreement to sale was also entered into by the petitioner with Rakesh Gupta and Neeraj Jain. Since the petitioner failed to perform the agreement, a suit for specific performance RCS-A-229/2022 was filed by Neeraj Jain and Rakesh Gupta, where on appearance of petitioner, a compromise was entered between the parties and a decree was passed in Lok Adalat on 14.5.2022 and the sale deed got registered by the order of the Court. An application for possession was also filed, wherein respondent No.2 appeared and filed objections under Order XXI rule 99 of C.P.C., raising all such objections as alleged in the FIR and prayed for setting aside of the order dated 14.5.2022 alleging that the same has b
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.
The mere existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings where allegations disclose crimes, and the delay in filing a complaint does not negate the need for investigation.
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
Civil and criminal proceedings can coexist; the presence of criminal allegations justifies the continuation of criminal investigations despite ongoing civil litigation.
A mere breach of contract does not preclude a finding of criminal cheating; fraud must be established at the agreement's inception.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
