IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 7 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10360 of 2019 SMT. MAMTA TYAGI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri A P S Tomar Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Shri Aman Raghuwanshi, Advocate on Behalf Of Shri Chetan Kanoongo Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of the petition with respect to petitioner no.2-Sangam Tyagi.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioner no.2-Sangam Tyagi.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner with regard to petitioner no.1-Smt.

Mamta Tyagi.

2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR dated 4.11.2018 registered at Crime No.458/2018 at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 of IPC along with all consequential proceedings.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 04.11.2018, the complainant, Shri Kamlesh Chaurasiya, lodged a written report alleging that an agreement to sell had been executed between the complainant and the petitioner in respect of Flat No. 402, Plot No. 38, Shriram Colony, Gwalior. It is alleged that the complainant had earlier entered into an oral agreement with the original owner of the said property, Smt. Hemlata Goyal, under which the complainant undertook the construction of the property at his own cost. In consideration of the said oral agreement, the complainant is stated to have paid a sum of ₹4,99,000/- on 04.12.2014 and another sum of ₹14,99,000/- on 24.03.2015 to Smt. Hemlata Goyal. It was further agreed between the complainant and Smt. Hemlata Goyal that the sale deed in respect of the said property could be executed in the name of any person nominated by the complainant. It is further alleged that on 10.04.2016, an agreement to sell was executed between the complainant and the petitioner, whereby the petitioner agreed to purchase the said flat for a total consideration of ₹37,00,000/- and paid an amount of ₹3,00,000/- as advance, undertaking to pay the remaining ₹34,00,000/- subsequently. According to the First Information Report, the petitioner thereafter paid ₹5,00,000/- by two cheques dated 10.05.2016 and 24.05.2016, and an additional ₹5,00,000/- through RTGS transfer. It is further alleged that the petitioner took ₹15,00,000/- from the complainant and, on the same day, paid ₹20,00,000/- to Smt. Hemlata Goyal, upon which the sale deed in respect of the said flat was executed in the petitioner’s name. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that upon a bare perusal of the contents of the FIR, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner. The allegations contained therein, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence under Sections 420 or 406 of the IPC. It has further been argued that the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner was duly executed on 06.06.2016. However, the impugned FIR came to be lodged by the complainant after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than two years. Such belated initiation of criminal proceedings, without any plausible explanation, clearly indicates that the present FIR is false, frivolous, and motivated, having been filed with a mala fide intent to harass the petitioner. It is an admitted position, as reflected in the FIR itself, that the complainant was never the owner of the property in question. The ownership of the said property, i.e. Flat No. 402, Plot No. 38, Shriram Colony, Gwalior, vested with Smt. Hemlata Goyal. Consequently, the complainant had no legal right, title, or authority