Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
JAI KUMAR PILLAI
Sudhirdas – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the alleged high-handed, illegal, and arbitrary actions of the Respondents, who purportedly attempted to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing.
2. During the pendency of the petition, by way of an amendment, the petitioners have additionally prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus for the quashment of the FIR registered against them at Crime No. 142 at Police Station Naugaon, District Dhar. The petitioners further seek an appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the Respondents to restore the possession of the property, alleging that the Respondents have illegally claimed to have taken possession thereof and have obstructed the course of justice.
Facts of the Case
3. The subject matter of the dispute is the land bearing Survey No. 770 (old No. 748), admeasuring 0.493 hectare, situated in village Naugaon, District Dhar. The petitioners assert that this land has been owned and recorded as "Abadi, Masih (Mission) Hospital" in the revenue records since at least the year 1927-28.
4. The p
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and not to stifle legitimate prosecutions.
(1) Revenue records are not documents of title – Questions of title can only be determined by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.(2) A civil dispute may metamorphose into a criminal dispute.
Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not permit quashing proceedings when prima facie evidence of a crime is present, mandating a trial to ascertain truth.
Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for adjudicating disputes regarding property titles; such matters should be resolved through civil courts.
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
The court held that property ownership disputes must be resolved in civil courts rather than through writ proceedings when title questions are contested.
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
