Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
Sharad Agarwal v. State of M. P. & Others
Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No. 7431 of 2020, 9859
of 2020, 12289 of 2020 and 17457 of 2020 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 6.5.2024.
(1) Natural Justice -- principle -- authority not impleaded as party in his personal capacity -- allegations of bias against him cannot be considered.
Held: Unless and until a person is impleaded as a party in his personal capacity, no allegations of bias can be considered against him. Therefore, whatever allegations have been levelled against the SDM/respondent No. 3 cannot be considered, therefore, the same are rejected on the said ground. (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 222, AIR 2003 SC 1344, AIR 1996 SC 326, JT 1996 (8) SC 550 and (2014) 5 SCC 417 followed. [Para 19]
(2) Sale deed -- validity -- circular of State Government dated 26.6.1984 -- applicability -- lease of forest land granted for five years -- period of lease not extended -- no transfer made by lessee in favour of co-accused No. 1, 2 and 3 -- they fraudulently got their names mutated in revenue record without any order of competent authority -- co-accused sold land to several persons -- further transfer of land in favour of several persons -- sale deeds cannot be declared valid by Additional Collector by relying on circular dated 26.6.1984 . [Paras 20 to 23]
(3) Bhumiswami Rights -- accrual of Bhumiswami rights on basis of circular of State Government -- lease of forest land granted for five years -- period of lease not extended -- rights of Bhumiswami in favour of lessee do not accrue automatically -- same have to be granted. W. P. No. 17922 of 2015 decided on 16.4.2024 relied on. [Paras 20 & 21]
(4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- Ss. 109 and 110 -- mutation in revenue record -- value -- mere mutation in revenue record would not confer any title -- mutation entry is not document of title -- it is made for fiscal purposes only. [Para 22]
(5) Sale -- principle -- seller cannot transfer title better than what he himself is having. (2013) 9 SCC 319 followed. [Para 22]
(6) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- quashing of FIR -- binding effect of findings given by revenue authorities on criminal Court -- sale deeds in favour of applicants by sellers who have no title -- Additional Collector held that sale deeds are legal -- such erroneous findings cannot be made applicable to criminal proceedings -- such order not binding on criminal proceedings. (2010) 8 SCC 775, (2009) 5 SCC 528 and SLP (Criminal) No. 9778 decided on 2.4.2024 followed. [Paras 22 to 26]
(7) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 154 -- registration of FIR -- notice or hearing opportunity prior to registration of FIR -- a suspect has no right of pre-audience prior to registration of FIR -- none of the applicants were entitled to any hearing prior to registrar of FIR. (2013) 6 SCC 384 followed. [Paras 27 & 28]
(8) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 467, 468, 469 and 471 -- sale of land by person other than owner -- specifically mentioned in sale deeds that land is not Government land and seller is owner -- seller dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property -- only intention was to gain undue advantage by causing undue loss to Government -- illegally selling Government land by making specific declaration that it is not Government land -- prima facie case made out under sections 467, 468, 469 and 471. (2003) 3 SCC 641 followed. (2009) 8 SCC 751 discussed. [Paras 34 to 36]
(9) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 467, 468, 469 and 471 -- criminal prosecution and civil wrong -- even if only civil ingredients are involved in allegations, it would not mean that wrongdoer cannot be criminally prosecuted. (2012) 9 SCC 460 followed. [Paras 39, 40, 43 & 44]
(10) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 52 -- bona fide transaction -- meaning -- Government forest land sold without any title -- seller cannot transfer title better than what he himself was having -- it is always obligatory on part of purchaser to verify title of seller -- therefore, if subsequent purchasers purchased said property, then it is not a bona fide transaction. [Paras 40 & 41]
¼1½ uSlfxZd U;k; & fl)kar & çkfèkdkjh d¨ mldh O;fäxr gSfl;r esa i{kdkj ugÈ cuk;k x;k & mld¢ fo#) i{kikr ds vfHkdFku¨a ij fopkj ugÈ fd;k tk ldrkA
vfÒfuèkkZfjr% tc rd fdlh O;fä d¨ mldh O;fäxr gSfl;r esa i{kdkj ugÈ cuk;k tkrk] mld¢ fo#) i{kikr d¢ vfHkdFku¨a ij fopkj ugÈ fd;k tk ldrkA blfy,] mi[kaM eftLVªsV@çR;FkÊ Øekad 3 d¢ fo#) t¨ Òh vfHkdFku fd, x, gSa] mu ij fopkj ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk] vr% og mDr vkèkkj ij ukeatwj fd, tkrs gSaA ¼1992½ lIyhŒ ¼1½ ,llhlh 222] ,vkbvkj 2003 ,llh 1344] ,vkbvkj 1996 ,llh 326] tsVh 1996 ¼8½ ,llh 550 rFkk ¼2014½ 5 ,llhlh 417 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19½
¼2½ foØ; foys[k & fofèkekU;rk & jkT; ljdkj dk ifji= fnukad 26-6-1984 & ykxw g¨uk & ou Òwfe dk iV~Vk ik¡p o"kZ d¢ fy, çnku fd;k x;k & iV~Vs dh vofèk cढ+kà ugÈ xà & iV~Vsnkj }kjk lg&vfÒ;qä Øekad 1] 2] ,oa 3 d¢ i{k esa d¨Ã varj.k ugÈ fd;k x;k & l{ke vfèkdkjh d¢ fdlh vkns'k d¢ fcuk mUg¨aus diViwoZd jktLo vfÒys[k esa viuk ukekarj.k djk fy;k & lg&vfÒ;qä¨a us vusd O;fä;¨a d¨ Òwfe foØ; dj nh & vkxs vkSj vU; vusd O;fä;¨a d¢ i{k esa Òwfe dk varj.k & vij dysDVj }kjk ifji= fnukad 26-6-1984 dk voyac ysrs gq, foØ; foys[k fofèkekU; Ĩf"kr ugÈ fd, tk ldrsA ¼iSjk 20 ls 23½
¼3½ ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj & jkT; ljdkj ds ifji= d¢ vkèkkj ij ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkjksa dk Loeso ç¨nÒwr g¨uk & ou Òwfe dk iÍk ik¡p o"kZ d¢ fy, çnku fd;k x;k & iV~Vs dh vofèk cढ+kà ugÈ xà & iV~Vsnkj d¢ i{k esa ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj Lor% ç¨n~Òwr ugÈ g¨rs & og çnku fd, tkuk g¨rs gSaA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 17922 lu~ 2015 fu.kÊr fnukad 16-4-2024 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 20 ,oa 21½
¼4½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 109 rFkk 110 & jktLo vfÒys[k esa ukekarj.k & ewY; & jktLo vfÒys[k esa ukekarj.k ek= ls d¨Ã gd çnÙk ugÈ gksrk & ukekarj.k dh çfof"V gd dk nLrkost ugÈ & ;g d¢oy jktfoÙkh; ç;¨tuksa d¢ fy, dh tkrh gSA ¼iSjk 22½
¼5½ foØ; & fl)kar & foØsrk vius gd ls vfèkd varj.k ugÈ dj ldrkA ¼2013½ 9 ,llhlh 319 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22½
¼6½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 482 & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ dk vfÒ[kaMu & jktLo çkfèkdkfj;¨a }kjk fn, x, fu"d"kksaZ dk naM U;k;ky; ij vkc)dj çHkko & vkosndx.k d¢ i{k esa ,sls O;fä;¨a }kjk foØ; foys[k ftudk dksbZ gd ugÈ & vij dysDVj us vfÒfuèkkZfjr fd;k fd foØ; foys[k oSèk gSa & ,sls xyr fu"d"kZ nkafMd dk;Zokgh d¨ ykxw ugÈ fd, tk ldrs & ,slk vkos'k nkafMd dk;Zokgh ij vkc)dj ugÈA ¼2010½ 8 ,llhlh 775] ¼2009½ 5 ,llhlh 528 rFkk fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk ¼nkafMd½ Øekad 9778 fu.kÊr fnukad 2-4-2024 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22 ls 26½
¼7½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 154 & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ dk jftLVªhdj.k & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ d¢ jftLVªhdj.k d¢ iwoZ lwpuk ;k lquokà dk volj & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ d¢ jftLVªhdj.k d¢ iwoZ lafnX/k dks lquokà dk d¨Ã vfèkdkj ugÈ & vkosndx.k esa ls d¨Ã Òh çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ d¢ jftLVªhdj.k d¢ iwoZ lquokà dk gdnkj ugÈ FkkA ¼2013½ 6 ,llhlh 384 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 27 ,oa 28½
¼8½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 467] 468] 469] rFkk 471 & Lokeh ls brj O;fä }kjk Òwfe dk foØ; & foØ; foys[k¨a esa fofufnZ"Vr% mfYyf[kr fd Òwfe ljdkjh Òwfe ugÈ gS v©j foØsrk Lokeh gS & ;g tkurs gq, fd lEifÙk mldh ugÈ] foØsrk }kjk csbekuh ls ;k diViwoZd viuh g¨us dk nkok & ,dek= vk’k; ljdkj d¨ vlE;d~ gkfu igq¡pkdj vlE;d~ Qk;nk çkIr djus dk Fkk & ljdkjh Òwfe ;g fofufnZ"V Ĩ"k.kk djrs gq, voSèk :i ls foØ; dh xà fd ;g ljdkjh Òwfe ugÈ & èkkjk 467] 468] 469 ,oa 471 d¢ vèkhu çFken`"V~;k ekeyk curk gSA ¼2003½ 3 ,llhlh 641 vuqlfjrA ¼2009½ 8 ,llhlh 751 foosfprA ¼iSjk 34 ls 36½
¼9½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 482 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 467] 468] 469 rFkk 471 & nkafMd vfÒ;¨tu vkSj flfoy vidkj & vfHkdFku¨a esa ek= flfoy laÄVd varoZfyr g¨us ij Òh ;g vfÒçsr ugÈ g¨xk fd n¨"kdrkZ dk nkafMd vfÒ;¨tu ugÈ fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2012½ 9 ,llhlh 460 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 39] 40] 43 ,oa 44½
¼10½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 52 & ln~Òkfod laO;ogkj & vfÒçsr & ljdkjh ou Òwfe fcuk gd d¢ foØ; dh xà & foØsrk vius gd ls vfèkd varj.k ugha dj ldrk & foØsrk d¢ gd dk lR;kiu djus d¢ fy, Øsrk lnSo ck/; gS & blfy,] ;fn i'pkr~orÊ Øsrkv¨a us mä laifÙk Ø; dh gS rc ;g ln~Òkfod laO;ogkj ugÈA ¼iSjk 40 ,oa 41½
ORDER
1. Since question of fact and law are identical in all the cases, therefore, M.Cr.C.No.7431/2020, M.Cr.C.No.9859/2020, M.Cr.C.No.12289/2020, and M.Cr.C.No.17457/2020 are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of M.Cr.C.No.7431/2020 shall be taken into consideration.
2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
i) It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ delete the name of present petitioner in FIR No.45, dated 30.1.2020 registered by Police Station Civil Lines, Chattarpur MP (annexure A-1) and also to quash all subsequent proceedings against the present applicant in the interest of justice.
ii) Pass orders for other relief/ directions, as deemed fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.
iii) Allow the petition with cost.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that FIR in crime No.45/2020 has been registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Chattarpur for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of IPC.
4. Challenging the impugned FIR, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that on the basis of written order passed by S.D.M. dated 30.1.2020, Tahsildar, Chattarpur made a written complaint alleging inter alia that in the year 1943-44, Khasra number 336 area 5.261 hectares was recorded as forest in the revenue record. It continued till 1952-53. In the year 1971-72 by order dated 7.1.1972 passed in revenue case No.133/A19/1971-72, a temporary patta for a period of five years was granted to Bilson Tirkey. Thereafter, the period of said Patta was never extended. It was alleged that after the expiry of Patta, name of the State Government should have been recorded in the revenue records. In the year 1983-84 co-accused No.1 Ramswarup, co-accused No.2 Sarmandevi and coaccused No.3 Ramsewak got their names mutated in the revenue records as Bhumi Swami, without there being any order by the revenue authority and a forged entry was made in column No.12 of Khasra Panchshala of the year 1983-84 that **vkns'k Jheku rglhynkj egksn; ds vkns'k Øekad ds vuqlkj HkwfeLokeh ?kksf"kr rFkk foØsrk [kkrsnkj fcfy;e vyhcDl us Øsrk x.kksa dks [kljk uacj 336@1 jdck 1-754 gsŒ yxkuh 5-33 ljeu nsoh iq=h nsoh Álkn ds uke rFkk 336@2 jdck 1-754 gsŒ yxkuh 8-34 jkeLo:i ru; jkeukFk ds uke rFkk 336@2 jdck 1-752 gsŒ yxkuh 8-33 jkelsod ru; jkeI;kjs ds uke Loh—r gqvkA**
5. It was submitted that, in fact, no such order was passed by any revenue authority. Thereafter, following sale-deeds were executed by following accused persons:
| Accused/Vendor | Accused/Vendee | Khasra No. | Area |
| Sarman Devi | Sheikh Jahoor Mansoor | 336/1A | 1.754 hectares |
| Ramswaroop | Santosh Kumar | 336/1B | 0.134 hectares |
| 336/1B | 0.068 hectares | ||
| Sheikh Jahoor Mansoor | Premchand Gupta | 336/1A | 1.754 hectares |
| Santosh Kumar | Prem Kumari W/o Premchand Gupta & Alpana Awasthy | 336/1B |
|
| Ram Sewak | Laxmi Pd. Awasthy |
|
|
| Premkumari | Smt. Richa Barsaiyan | 336/1B | 0.202 hectares |
| Premchand Gupta Barsaiyan | Smt. Richa | 336/A | 1.754 hectares |
| Smt. Richa Barsaiyan | Manisha Mishra | 3 sale-deeds | 1.354 hectares |
| Laxmi Pd. Awasthy | Sharad Agrawal | 336/1C | 1.753 hectares |
| Manisha Mishra | Sharad Agrawal | 336/1/ka/2 | 1.754 hectares |
| Sharad Agrawal | Prakhar Samajothan Pragati Samiti through Ajay Singh Bhadoriya |
|
|
| Prakhar Samajothan Pragati Samiti | Ajay Kumar Tiwari | 336/1/1/ka/2, 336/1/c, 336/1/ka/2 | 1.254 hectares, 1.240 hectares, 0.53 hectares |
6. Challenging the FIR in question, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that respondent No.3 S.D.M. passed an order on 30.1.2020 by giving reference to order dated 25.1.2020 in Revenue Case No.79/A-6-A/2019-20 of village Kadari and requested the S.P. Chattarpur to register an FIR for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 IPC. Thereafter, Shri Abhay Singh Bhadoriya, one of the co-accus
It is well settled that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, it must be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the representation or promise and ....
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
The court emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences, quashing the FIR due to lack of criminal intent in the allegations.
The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes, emphasizing that the FIR lacked allegations constituting a criminal offence and should be quashed.
The execution of sale deeds by co-sharers exceeding their portion does not constitute forgery or criminal liability, reaffirming that such disputes are civil in nature.
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
