Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Chandramohan Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6066 of 2024 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 2.4.2024
(1) Order -- reasons are backbone of order -- only reasons would point out whether there was application of mind or not. (2018) 8 SCC 443 followed. [Para 12]
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.420 -- “property” -- registration of sale deed -- would certainly fall within definition of “property” because it is required for transfer of ownership, which is valuable right of parties. Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2024 decided on 22.1.2024 (SC) followed. [Paras 14 & 15]
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 420 -- undervaluation of sale deed -- value of conveyance deliberately shown to be less than what was actually transacted between parties -- certainly amounts to deceiving State authorities -- it would prima facie fall within definition of S. 420 of IPC. [Para 17]
(4) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- scope of powers -- undervaluation of sale deed -- plea of accused/applicant that land was shown as agricultural land in revenue records therefore, under bona fide belief, he purchased it -- held -- seller of property must be aware that land is diverted -- whether said fact was ever communicated by seller to purchaser before registration of sale deed or not, is disputed question of fact -- will fall within category of defence to be proved by applicant in trial -- while exercising power u/s. 482, Court cannot consider defence of accused -- proceedings can be quashed only if uncontroverted allegations do not make out offence. [Paras 18 to 20 & 27]
(5) Stamp Act, 1899 -- S. 62 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 420 -- applicability of provisions of IPC -- provisions of Stamp Act do not prohibit application of provisions of IPC -- merely because order of penalty has been passed by Collector of Stamps, applicant would not be absolved from criminal liability. (2009) 11 SCC 424 and Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2023 decided on 25.7.2023 (SC) followed. [Paras 24 & 25]
(6) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- Stamp Act, 1899 -- S. 62 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 420 -- quashing of FIR -- undervaluation of sale deed -- evading stamp duty on sale deed by showing diverted land as agricultural land -- taking uncontroverted allegations on their face value, prima facie offence u/s. 420 of IPC made out -- interference not warranted. M. Cr. C. No. 3468 of 2014 decided on 26.6.2024 (Gwalior) discussed. [Paras 27 & 28]
¼1½ vkns'k & dkj.k vkns'k dk es:naM gksrs gSa & dkj.kksa ls gh minf'kZr gksxk gS fd euksfu;ksx fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ughaA ¼2018½ 8 ,llhlh 443 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12½
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 420 & ^^laifÙk** & foØ; foys[k dk jftLVªhdj.k & fuf'pr gh ^^laifÙk** dh ifjHkk"kk ds varxZr vk,xk D;ksafd og LokfeRo ds varj.k ds fy, vko';d gS] tks fd i{kdkjksa dk ewY;oku vf/kdkj gSA nkafMd vihy Ø- 335 lu~ 2024 fu.khZr fnukad 22-1-2024 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15½
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 420 & foØ; foys[k dk voewY;kdau & gLrkarj.k dk ewY; tkucw> dj i{kdkjksa ds e/; gq, okLrfod laO;ogkj ls de n'kkZ;k x;k & fuf'pr gh jkT; çkf/kdkfj;ksa dks çoafpr djus dh dksfV esa vkrk gS & çFke–"V;k naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 420 dh ifjHkk"kk ds varxZr vk,xkA ¼iSjk 17½
¼4½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & foØ; foys[k dk voewY;kadu & vfHk;qä@vkosnd dk vfHkokd~ fd jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa Hkwfe —f"k Hkwfe n'kkZbZ xbZ Fkh blfy, mlus ln~Hkkfod fo'okl esa mls Ø; fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & laifÙk ds foØsrk dks vo'; Kkr gksxk fd Hkwfe O;iofrZr gS & foØ; foys[k ds jftLVªhdj.k ds iwoZ foØsrk }kjk ;g rF; Øsrk dks dHkh crk;k x;k ugha] ;g rF; dk fookfnr ç'u gS & vkosnd }kjk fopkj.k esa lkfcr dh tkus okyh çfrj{kk ds oxZ esa vkrk gS & /kkjk 482 ds v/khu 'kfä ç;qä djrs le; U;k;ky; vfHk;qä dh çfrj{kk ij fopkj ugha dj ldrk & dk;Zokgh rc gh vfHk[kafMr dh tk ldrh gS tc v[kafMr vfHkdFkuksa ls vijk/k ugha curk gksA ¼iSjk 18 ls 20 ,oa 27½
¼5½ LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 & /kkjk 62 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 420 & naM lafgrk ds mica/k ykxw gksuk & LVkai vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa esa naM lafgrk ds mica/kksa ds ykxw gksus dk çfr"ks/k ugha & vkosnd nkafMd nkf;Ro ls ek= blfy, eqfä ugha ik,xk fd LVkai dysDVj }kjk 'kkfLr dk vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k x;k gSA ¼2009½ 11 ,llhlh 424 rFkk nkafMd vihy Ø- 2093 lu~ 2023 fu.khZr fnukad 25-7-2023 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 24 ,oa 25½
¼6½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 & èkkjk 62 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 420 & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHka[kMu & foØ; foys[k dk voewY;kadu & O;iofrZr Hkwfe dks —f"k Hkwfe n'kkZdj foØ; foys[k ij LVkai&'kqYd ls cpuk & v[kafMr vfHkdFkuksa dks çR;{k ewY; ij ysus ij naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 420 ds v/khu vijk/k çFke–"V;k fl) & gLr{ksi okaNuh; ughaA çdh.kZ nkafMd ;kfpdk Ø- 3468 lu~ 2014 fu.khZr fnukad 26-6-2024 ¼Xokfy;j½ foosfprA ¼iSjk 27 ,oa 28½
ORDER
1. This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.526/2023 registered at Police Station Suatala, District Narsinghpur for offence under sections 420, 34 of IPC.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that applicant had purchased an agricultural land bearing survey numbers 225/3, 171/2, 172, 170, 166 and 168/2 situated at Village Chanwarpatha, Tehsil Tendukheda from one Yogendra Singh, who has also been arrayed as an accused. As per the prosecution case, the land was already diverted and in order to save the stamp duty, the sale deed was executed by showing the land in question as an agricultural land. By letter dated 20.12.2023, Additional Collector, Narsinghpur directed Tehsildar, Tendukheda to lodge the FIR against applicant and co-accused for causing revenue loss to the State and for financial misappropriation also. Accordingly, FIR in question has been registered. It is submitted that in a separate proceeding Collector of Stamps has held that there was an evasion of stamp duty and accordingly by order dated 5.2.2024 passed in Case No.1/B-103/48(B)/2023-24 has also imposed a penalty which has been deposited by applicant. It is further submitted that once there is a specific provision under the Stamp Act for recovery of deficit stamp duty then taking resort to criminal action is unwarranted. Accordingly, it is prayed that FIR is bad in law. It is further submitted that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and in revenue records it was being reflected as an agricultural land, therefore, under a bona fide belief he has purchased the land in dispute and under these circumstances, prosecution of applicant is bad in law. To buttress his contention, counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Mariam Fasihuddin and another v. State by Adugodi Police Station and another decided on 22.1.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.335/2024 and the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sudha Gupta and others v. State of M.P. through P.S. Huzrat Kotwali, Gwalior decided on 26.6.2024 in MCRC No.3468/2014 (Gwalior Bench).
3. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties.
5. Since the facts of the case are in a narrow compass and have already been reproduced in the earlier part of this order, therefore, it is not necessary to reproduce the same. The only question for consideration is whether registration of a sale deed by showing the diverted land as an agricultural land thereby evading the stamp duty would amount to an offence under section 420 of IPC or not?
6. Section 420 of IPC reads as under :
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. : Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable fine.”
7. The necessary ingredients of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property would include that there must be some deception on the part of accused thereby inducing another person to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property and accused did so with a dishonest intention.
8. By relying upon the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sudha Gupta (supra), it is submitted by counsel for applicant that if there is an evasion of stamp duty, then it cannot be said that any offence under section 420 of IPC would be made out and referred to paragraphs 10 and 11 of aforesaid judgment.
9. Paragraphs 10
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC requires the presence of fraudulent or dishonest intention to induce delivery of....
The discrepancies in the metes and bounds did not amount to forgery or cheating, and the allegations in the FIR did not make out any offence under the relevant sections of the IPC.
The court emphasized that speculative allegations without substantial evidence cannot sustain criminal proceedings, and individuals possess the right to manage their property affairs without undue in....
Criminal proceedings cannot proceed where allegations only constitute a civil dispute without intent to cheat.
Civil disputes should not be framed as criminal offences when no fraudulent intent is evident, as it constitutes an abuse of legal processes.
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
