Shrichand Bhau S/O Gulab Rai vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 945

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Anand Pathak, J.
Shrichand Bhau S/O Gulab Rai and another – Petitioner
Versus
State of M. P. and another – Respondents
M. Cr. C. No. 3315 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sameer Kumar Shrivastava
For the Respondent: Ravindra Singh

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought to quash FIR registered against them based on allegations of fraud concerning sale deeds. The court noted that the owner never contested the validity of the sale deeds during his lifetime, hence the complainant's claims were baseless. (Paras 48, 49)

(B) Criminal Proceedings - Conversion of civil disputes into criminal offences - The court underscored the trend of converting civil disputes into criminal complaints, emphasizing that criminal litigation should not be used as leverage in civil matters. It's essential for courts to distinguish between civil and criminal liabilities. (Paras 26, 32)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were accused of obtaining sale deeds for land under fraudulent circumstances. The FIR was filed after a protracted civil litigation where the complainant's claims had already been addressed, including a withdrawal of a civil suit due to a settlement. (Paras 5, 18, 48)

Findings of Court:
The FIR was quashed as the allegations were deemed frivolous, and initiating criminal proceedings after long civil litigation was improper. The court highlighted the necessity for careful scrutiny of such cases to prevent misuse of criminal law. (Paras 42, 48)

Issues: Whether the FIR constituted an abuse of the process of law given the long-standing civil litigations regarding the same dispute and the timing of the complaint. (Para 42)

Ratio Decidendi: It was ruled that complaints converting civil liabilities into criminal allegations must be strictly scrutinized. The court reinforced that heirs cannot challenge legitimate transactions executed during the decedent's lifetime if no objections were raised then. (Paras 28, 48)

Result: The FIR registered against the petitioners was quashed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek quashment of fir based on ownership claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. disputed property ownership and past civil litigation details. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. allegations of fraud in execution of sale deeds. (Para 16 , 17 , 19)
4. challenges of civil matters leading to criminal complaints. (Para 24 , 30)
5. court's ruling supports validity of sale deeds, quashing fir. (Para 45 , 48)
6. final order quashing fir and releasing petitioners. (Para 52 , 53)

ORDER :

Anand Pathak, J.

The present petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred at the instance of petitioners/accused seeking following reliefs :

“1. FIR Annexure P-1 registered at Crime No. 319/2021 at Police Station Kotwali Vidisha District Vidisha (M.P.) may kindly be quashed along with charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings.”

2. Through this petition, petitioners are seeking quashment of FIR which was registered against them on 7-7-2021 vide Crime No. 319/2021 for the alleged offence under section 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of IPC. For last more than 2 years, investigation is pending and charge-sheet has not been filed.

3. As per FIR, period of offence oscillates between 12-5-1987 to 31-12-2020. On 7-7-2021 one application was filed by Hukumchand Balecha S/o Shri Surajmal Balecha (respondent No. 2 herein) with the allegations that Surajmal Balecha was owner of survey No. 1537/2, 1538/2, 1540/1 situate at Vidisha and loan was obtained on 18-4-1978 by Surajmal Balecha from State Bank of India for the purpose of purchasing the property. That loan was in existence at the relevant point of time.

4. Allegations further unfolded the fact that on 12-5-1987, present petitioner No. 1 -Shrichand Bhau purchased the land vide survey No. 1540/1 and petitioner No. 2 namely Rajendra Kumar purchased the land vide survey No. 1538/2 from Surajmal Balecha, however the said sale deeds are false and fabricated. These properties were never sold by the father of the complainant. Therefore, FIR was registered.

5. According to the complainant, his father Surajmal Balecha died on 10-3-2008 and before that on 4-3-2008, a Will was executed by his father in his favour. For better understanding of the factual details, petitioners have placed the list of dates and events involved in the case in tabular representation and same is reproduced for ready reference :

S. No.	Date	Event	Document
1	12-5-87	Petitioner No. 1 purchased land of survey No. 1540/1 from Surajmal Balecha. Present complainant has given his no objection on sale deed	Annexure P/2 Page No. 20
2	12-5-87	Petitioner No. 2 purchased land of survey No. 1540/1 and 1538/2 from Surajmal Balecha. Present complainant has given his no objection on sale deed	Annexure P/3 Page No. 38
3	7-10-88	Civil Suit No. 4-A/2011 (earlier No. 83-A/89) was filed by Hariram who was real brother of Surajmal about the property in question. In the civil suit it was pleaded that the disputed property is of joint ownership and therefore it could not have been sold to the present petitioner.
4	17-1-90	Surajmal filed written statement and pleaded that the property is his self acquired property and sale deed done by him in favour of petitioner are not bad in law and he has voluntarily executed the sale deed.	Annexure P/5 Page No. 60 Para 12
5	20-9-13	Civil Suit No. 4-A/2011 (earlier civil suit No. 83-A/1989) was dismissed by learned Second Civil Judge Class -I, Vidisha and found that sale deed executed by Surajmal in favour of present petitioner are valid. Complainant was party in the civil suit.	Annexure P/6 Page No. 64 Para 22
6	29-10-13	Hariram filed civil appeal before learned Fifth Additional Judge to the