Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3505
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J
Shanker Manchani – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 5667/2025
Kapil Rohra,Advocate General
Criminal prosecution cannot proceed for matters that are essentially civil in nature, especially when the issues are pending in civil court.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner sought to quash FIR for offences under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, arguing it was a civil matter pending in court - Court found that the FIR was based on documents subject to civil litigation and quashed the FIR, stating that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 14)
(B) Malicious Prosecution - The court emphasized that criminal prosecution should not be initiated for disputes that are essentially civil in nature, especially when the matter is pending in civil court. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of fraudulently selling a plot of land despite an existing agreement with the complainant, who alleged forgery of signatures on key documents. The FIR was filed while a civil suit regarding the same matter was ongoing.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR was based on allegations that were already subject to civil litigation, thus quashing the FIR and all related proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR could be quashed given that the allegations were part of a civil dispute already pending in court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continuation of criminal proceedings in a matter that is fundamentally civil in nature constitutes an abuse of process, and thus the FIR was quashed.
Result: FIR quashed.
ORDER
Of a note, this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 had granted interim protection to the petitioner and challenging that order, an SLP No.3623/2025 was preferred and the Supreme Court primarily declined to interfere in the order dated 06.02.2025 and has directed for an expeditious disposal of the petition. In deference to the order of the Supreme Court, this Court persuaded the counsels to argue the matter finally. Although time was being sought on behalf of respondent No.2 to avoid final hearing of the matter and as such this Court was constrained to observe in order-sheet dated 15.04.2025 that the matter was being adjourned at the behest of counsel for respondent No.2. Albeit, at the time of final hearing, it was urged by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the said observation may be recalled. Finding that the recall of said observation would not cause prejudice to any of the parties and as such, the said observation was recalled. Since the pleadings were complete, the matter was heard on 22.04.2025 at length and today the order is being pronounced.
2. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 r/w Section 482 of CrPC by the petitioner for quashing the FIR registered vide Crime No.62/2025 at Police Station Omti, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC against the petitioner and also seeking annulment of subsequent proceeding arising out of the said FIR.
3. The challenge is founded mainly on the ground that the crime has been registered pursuant to a complaint made by complainant (respondent No.2 herein), although it is purely a case of civil nature, for which, civil suit is pending and all the material documents that are made the foundation for the registration of FIR, are subject matter of the civil suit and their sanctity has to be tested by the trial Court in the civil suit. As per the petitioner, the FIR deserves to be quashed because it has been lodged with an intention to create undue pressure upon the petitioner for settling the civil dispute.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 raised objection and submitted that there are documents which have been said to be fabricated and forged signatures of complainant were made. The veracity of alleged fraud can be discerned only through investigation by the police. Ergo, the FIR has rightly been registered against the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that mini trial cannot be conducted by this Court so as to ascertain the sanctity of the allegations and therefore they have claimed that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. The encapsulated facts of the case are that as per the contents of the FIR lodged on 28.01.2025, it is alleged that even after entering into an agreement with respondent No.2 for the sale of a plot situated at Village Laxmipur, No.643, Patwari Halka No.25/31 Rajaswa Nirakashak Mandal Jabalpur-I, Tehsil & District Jabalpur, khasra No.446 to 451 admeasuring 24402 square-feet, the petitioner sold it to one Mohan Prasad Paroha.
5.1 It is alleged by respondent No.2 that the said plot was sold after obtaining permission from the Jabalpur Development Authority (JDA) and NOC was also obtained, but the application moved to obtain the said document was not signed by respondent No.2 and his signature was forged by the petitioner. It is also alleged that the cancellation deed, which was prepared in order to cancel the original agreement entered into between the petitioner, his partner Smt. Shobha Yadav and respondent No.2 with his brothers, has also been forged by the petitioner. As per the allegations made by the complainant and as also submitted by the counsel for respondent No.2 that on two documents i.e. the application for seeking permission from JDA and NOC granted by JDA on that permission, the application did not contain the signature of the complainant although it was
