IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI ON THE 21^st OF NOVEMBER, 2022 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.5211 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

DR. GURNAM SINGH, S/O LATE SUCHA SINGH, AGED 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION DOCTOR, R/O SATNAM NURSINGH HOME, MACRONIA, SAGAR (M.P.)

......PETITIONER (BY SHRI ANIL KHARE - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI T.R. KURMI AND SHRI A.J. MATHEW - ADVOCATES)

AND

1. DHANIRAM, S/O LATE KANCHHEDILAL AHIRWAR, AGED 71 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE LIDHORAHAT, DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.).

2. GOPAL SHRIVASTAVA (FORMAL PARTY) S/O SHRI M.L. SHRIVASTAVA, R/O COLLECTOR PARISAR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.).

.....RESPONDENTS (No.1 BY SHRI P.K. NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE)

(No.2 BY SHRI SHAILENDRA VERMA - ADVOCATE)

................................................................................................................................................

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

ORDER

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the shape of appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) whereby the trial court taking cognizance on the complaint filed by respondent No.1 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has directed the authority to register offence against the petitioner and respondent No.2 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(iv) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For short Act of 1989) and also issued bailable warrant against them.

2. The challenge is made mainly on the ground that the prosecution initiated against the petitioner in pursuance to the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 is nothing but a malicious prosecution and as such it is liable to be quashed.

3. To resolve the controversy involved in the case, necessary facts are required to be mentioned : The respondent No.1 (complainant) filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on 28.03.2019 alleging therein that with intent to embezzle his land the petitioner and respondent No. 2 Gopal Shrivastava in collusion with one Jagannath Ahirwar, who later on died, impersonated some other women in place of his dead sisters Saraswati Bai and Kosabai (original owners of the land) and presented them as Saraswati Bai and Kosabai and got the sale deed executed. The sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. In the complaint it is claimed that the land bearing Kh.No.119/1 area 0.20 hectare situated at Lighora Hat, Tehsil and District Sagar owned and possessed by the deceased sisters of the complainant (respondent No.1), which was given to complainant by a written family settlement dated 19.02.2014 and as such he owned and possessed the said land. It is also alleged in the complaint that to embezzle the land of the complainant the mutation also got done in the name of the present petitioner on the basis of the said forged sale deed. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed by the complainant (respondent No.1) i.e. Civil Suit No. 19-A/2015, which was decided on 30.07.2016 declaring the sale deed executed in favour of the present petitioner forged and void. As per the complainant, the conduct of the present petitioner and the respondent No. 2 comes under offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and therefore he filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for registration of offence against them. Thereafter statements of witnesses got recorded and vide order dated 4^th January, 2020 the trial court directed the authority to register offence against the petitioner and respondent No.2 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv) and 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. 4. To prove innocence of the petitioner in the alleged offence, Shri