Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 38265
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J
Shabbir Bhai Palanpurwala – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 39742/2023
Arpit Singh,Advocate General
Criminal proceedings should not be pursued when the underlying dispute is civil in nature, to prevent abuse of the legal process.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of cognizance order - Petitioners sought to quash the order of cognizance and subsequent proceedings for offences under IPC - Court found the dispute to be of civil nature disguised as criminal, allowing the petition and quashing the proceedings. (Paras 15, 19, 21)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Abuse of process - The court emphasized the need to prevent misuse of criminal proceedings when civil remedies are available, reiterating the principle that civil disputes should not be cloaked in criminal allegations. (Paras 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners entered into a sale transaction for a property, allegedly misrepresenting their authority and the legitimacy of the sale, leading to a complaint by the bona fide purchasers who later discovered the property was not theirs to sell. (Paras 3-6)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the proceedings were an abuse of process as the core issue was civil in nature, and allowed the petition to quash the cognizance order. (Paras 20-21)
Issues: The main issue was whether the complaint disclosed a criminal offence or if it was essentially a civil dispute mischaracterized as criminal. (Paras 18-19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute was of civil nature and should not be pursued as a criminal complaint, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of the legal process. (Paras 19-20)
Result: Petition allowed, cognizance order quashed.
ORDER
1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of cognizance dated 10.02.2022 2 MCRC No.39742-2023 passed in Case No.UNCR No.62 of 2020 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain as also the subsequent proceedings in the form of case No.RCT 217 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Ujjain.
Brief Facts:
3] In brief, the facts of the case are that a private complaint dated 13.02.2019 has been filed by Shabbir Hussain and Hakimuddin respondent Nos.2 and 3herein before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain alleging commission of offence under Sections 420, 403, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120(b), 506, 323 and 294 of IPC by Shabbir and Shaikh Mustafa (present petitioners), as also against Mohsin, Khuzaima and Ishak.
4] It was alleged that both the parties are of the same community, and the disputed property, situated at 3/1237 (New No.36) at Mohalla Kamari Gali No.1, Chhota Teliwada Gali, Ujjain was owned and possessed by Mazar-e-Nazmi, which is a registered Waqf at Serial No.32 with Waqf Board, Bhopal. The case against the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 Shabbir Bhai Palanpurwala, and co-accused Mohsin told the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that for the sale of the said building, petitioner No.2 has been authorized. Petitioners were working for Mazar-e-Nazmi, and hence, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 trusted them and expressed their interest to purchase Medavala Building. It has been further averred that petitioner No.2 also showed letter dated Q/SDWJ/313 dated 11.09.2013, whereby permission to sell the 3 MCRC No.39742-2023 aforesaid building had been granted by Waqf Board, and it was told to thecomplainant that original letter is lying with petitioner No.1 and co-
accused Mohsin Bhai. Since the aforesaid property belonged to respondent Nos.2 and 3's Guru Syedna Sahab, hence, they agreed to purchase the said property.
5] It has been further alleged, that petitioners and co-accused Mohsin Bhai took Rs. 20,00,000/- cash as security against which receipt on the letter pad of Mazar-e-Nazmi was issued, and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 paid sale consideration ofRs.23,00,000-, via Cheques.
Thus, the Sale deed dated 27.11.2015 was executed with regard to the aforesaid property. It is further alleged that the Petitioners and other accused persons did not give the original letter dated 11.09.2013, to the complainant on the pretext that there is only one original letter and it contains description of other properties as well and assured of giving its certified copy at a future date. It is alleged that thereafter, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 made several attempts to procure the said letter but could not obtain the same.
6] It has been further alleged that respondent Nos.2 and 3 received summons from Waqf Tribunal regarding a Civil Suit filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Waqf Board seeking relief of declaration of the aforesaid sale deed dated 26.11.2015, as null and void as the same was alleged to be executed on the basis of forged Letter dated 11.09.2013,and only after receiving such information that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 learnt that they have been cheated, as they have 4 MCRC No.39742-2023 been sold a property, which the petitioners were not entitled to sell.
When the respondent Nos.2 and 3 confronted co-accused person, Khuzema and Ishaq with regard to the aforesaid facts they did not entertain them and on the contrary abused them by stating that nothing wrong has been done, and the petitioners and other co-accused persons denied taking the cash amount, and are further trying to evict the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the aforesaid house.
7] It has been further averred that respondent Nos.2 and 3 made complaint to S.P on 20.02.2018, against petitioners and other co-
accused persons, but no action was taken.
8] In the aforesaid private complaint, the learned JMFC has recorded the statem
