IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI th ON THE 24 OF MAY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12972 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

1. G. RAMCHANDRA MOHAN S/O LATE MR. N.G.

PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

RET. FRON PRIVATE SERVICE R/O 124 A AYAPPA NAGAR DISTRICT SUELA BHILAI (CHHATTISGARH)

2. AWADHESH PANDEY S/O SHRI GAYA PRASAD PANDEY R/O GRAM PANCHAYAT PANDEY GHUTIA HARRAI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANTS (BY SHRI DEEPAK PANJWANI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION BARGI DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SACHIN NATH DUBEY S/O SHANKAR DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O 643 NARSINGH WARD AMANPUR MADANMAHAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY MS. SHIKHA BAGHEL - PANEL LAWYER)

(BY SHRI GIRISH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO./OBJECTOR)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashment of the FUR/Crime No.20/2024, dated 11-01-2024 registered at the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR Police Station, Bargi District Jabalpur.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants contends, that the applicant No.1 is duly elected General Secretary of the Society which is known as Spiritual Regeneration Movement (SRM) Foundation of India [hereinafter referred to as "SRM Foundation"]. It is contended by the counsel that the Society is running from 1963, and the present applicants in the capacity of office-bearers of the Society, are entitled to deal with the properties which are owned by the Society. However, on the basis of a complaint moved by the complainant/respondent No.2 herein, an FIR has been registered on the allegations that the lands situate in the Village - Ghutia, Tikhari, Patwari Halka No.31, Khasra Nos.7/1, 7/2, 7/3, 7/4 and 7/5, total area 45 acres (approx.) which was owned by the Society, has been alienated by the applicant No.2. As per the complainant the applicant No.2 had given his resignation to the Society on 08-07-2022, and after submitting his resignation the applicant No.2 had no right to transfer the property.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the property was alienated to the applicant No.2 on the basis of a Power of Attorney duly executed. It is further contended by the counsel that allegations of submitting resignation are misconceived. Further, in the present case, a civil dispute is being sought to be given colour of a criminal case. Learned counsel submits that in the State of Chhattisgarh also, a similar complaint was filed and the High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed the proceedings, and an order in that regard is already available on record.

4.It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that even the complainant and his associates, while claiming themselves to be the office-bearers of the Society, had filed a suit, however the said suit was Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR withdrawn later on. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that as disputed questions of facts are involved and the dispute prima facie pertains to property, the present petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC deserves to be allowed.

5. Learned counsels for the State and the respondent No.2 submit that in the present case, the complainant levelled allegations that SRM Foundation is a registered society and the land in question was owned by SRM Foundation. The amount of consideration was not transferred in the account which is owned by SRM Foundation, on the contrary, the same was transferred in the account bearing Account No.1098101100603 with Canara Bank, Parliament Road, New Delhi, and account-holder of which is the applicant No.1. It is contended by the counsel that as the allegations have been levelled that the land owned by the Society i.e. SRM Foundation, was not transferred in the account of the society i.e. SRM Foundation, accordingly the case is regis