SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(MP) 838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.
Prateek Kumar – Appellant
Versus 
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 4467 of 2022 With Criminal Revision No. 810 of 2023
Decided On : 21-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Atishay Dhaker, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Shri Suhas Pundlik, learned Govt. Advocate, Ms. Swati Sharma, learned counsel

The concealment of prior ownership during a property sale constitutes prima facie evidence of cheating, while insufficient evidence exists for forgery charges.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420 and 468 - Charges framed against petitioners for cheating and forgery - The court found no evidence of forgery but affirmed charges of cheating due to concealment of prior sale - The petitioners executed a sale deed while knowing the land was previously sold, indicating intent to deceive. (Paras 11, 17, 23)

(B) Criminal Charges - The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the prosecution must show prima facie evidence of the accused's involvement in the alleged crime. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sold land to the respondent while being aware of a prior sale to another party, leading to allegations of cheating and forgery. (Paras 3, 5)

Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence for forgery charges but upheld the cheating charges based on the concealment of prior ownership. (Paras 11, 23)

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners had the intent to cheat and if there was sufficient evidence for the charges of forgery. (Paras 7, 17)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the concealment of prior ownership during the sale constituted prima facie evidence of cheating, while no evidence supported the forgery charges. (Paras 11, 17)

Result: The revision petition was partly allowed; the petitioners were discharged from forgery charges, but cheating charges were affirmed.

ORDER :

PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.

1. Both the criminal revision petitions have been arising out of the same impugned order, hence both are being decided with this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CRR No.4467/2022.

2. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order of framing of charges against the petitioners under Sections 420 , 468 of IPC , 1860 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District Ujjain in S.T No.11/2022 vide dated 02.11.2022.

3. As per the prosecution story, one Chand Mohmaad Kha Mevati was the owner and in possession of the Land bearing Survey No, 812/1 and 812/2 located at Village Ghosla, Tehsil Mahidpur, Dist. Ujjain, MP. After his death his Legal Heirs, namely, Jaitun Bee and Shankuran Bee D/o Chand Mohmaad Kha Mevati became the owner of the said Property. That, on 28.01.2009 Jaitun bee D/o Chand Kha Mevati sold the survey no. 812/2 to Prakashkuwar w/o Jaswant Singh vide registered sale deed dated 28.01.2009. And on 17.07.2009 Shakuran Bee D/o Chand Kha. Mevati sold the survey no. 812/1 to Hariram s/o Jairamji Jaat vide registered sale deed dated 17.07.2009. Applicant purchased the land bearing Survey No. 812/2 from Smt.' Prakeshkuvar w/o Jaswant Singh and Survey 812/1 from Hariram s/o Jairamji both located at Village Ghosla, Tehsil Mahidpur, Dist. Ujjain, M.P. vide registered sale deed dated 16.11.2009. thereafter Applicant executed registered Power of Attorney in favor of one Vardhman Gadiya s/o Amrutlal Gadiya (petitioner of CRA No.810/2023) to deal with the aforesaid property for the period commencing from 05.01.2012 to 04.01.2013. thereafter in the year 2012 Respondent no.02 Purchased the aforesaid property from Applicant vide registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.2012. On 29.12.2012 Respondent no. 02 filed an Application for Mutation of his name in revenue records with respect to aforesaid property before the Ld. Tehsildar, Ghosla, Tehsil Mahidpur, Dist. Ujjain, MP. One Bherulal s/o Kanchan Singh raised objections before the Ld. Tehsildar in the mutation |proceedings but the said Application was allowed by the Ld. Tehsildar vide its order dated 23.02.2013 and accordingly the name of Respondent no. 02 was mutated in revenue records with respect to the said Property. On 19.02.2013 Respondent no. 02 was added as a party to the ongoing Civil Suit No.65-A/2014 for Declaration of Title and Permanent Injunction on aforesaid property. The said Civil Suit was filed by Bherulal against Prateek Kumar and Others before the Civil Judge, Mahidpur, Dist. Ujjain, MP. which was Decreed by the Ld. Court on 27.04.2015.

4. Thereafter respondent no.02 filed an Appeal before the Ld. ADJ, Mahidpur, Dist. Ujjain, MP challenging the Order dated 27.04.2015 and the said Appeal was dismissed by the Ld. Court vide its order dated 13.08.2019. On 03/07/2018 a Complaint was filed by Respondent no.02 against the Applicant and other co-accused persons namely Vardhman Gadiya s/o Amrutlal Gadiya and Narendra Kumar s/o Sundarlal Nahar. It was alleged by the Respondent no. 02 in the said complaint that in the year 2012 he purchased a land bearing Survey No. 812/1 and 812/2 located at Village Ghosla, Tehsil Mahidpur, Dist. Ujjain, M.P. from Applicant vide registered sale deed dated 29/12/2012 and allegedly paid Rs. 10,00,000/- in lieu of sale consideration. It has been-further alleged by respondent no. 02 that the Sale Deed dated 29.12.2012 was executed by the co-accused Vardhman Gadiya as he was appointed as agent by the Applicant to deal with the said Property vide registered Power of Attorney dated 05.01.2012. It has been further alleged that on 19.02.2013 Respondent no. 02 received summons of Court whereby he was added as a party.

5. It is alleged that the present petitioners were well within the knowledge that the said land was already sold to one Bherulal by registered sale deed dated 07.06.1999. It is also within the kno

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top