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

th

ON THE 26 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29281 of 2025 AMAN SINGH MAVAI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].

ORDER This petition under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding Section 482 CrPC) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR registered as Crime No.140/2023 at Police Station University District Gwalior for offence punishable under Section 420, 120-B of IPC.

2. The complainant Narendra Gupta has filed a complaint against the present petitioners, wherein it has been stated that the complainant alleges that their plot, with a government valuation of ₹20 lakh and a market value of ₹64.61 lakh, was fraudulently acquired by the accused. The accused initially agreed to purchase the plot for ₹64.61 lakh, transferring ₹1 lakh as an advance and promising ₹10 lakh at the time of the agreement. However, through a conspiracy, the accused allegedly tricked the complainant into signing a sale deed instead of an agreement to sell. The registered sale deed falsely stated that the complainant received ₹3 lakh in cash and a ₹26 lakh cheque, neither of which was actually received. The complainant further claims that they were deceived into registering the sale deed at the Registrar's office without their full knowledge or consent to the terms of the fraudulent transaction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations, even if assumed to be true, constitute a civil dispute regarding the sale and registry of property, rather than a criminal offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the registration of property involves multiple checks and processes under the Registration Act, 1908, and any document submitted for registration is verified by the Registrar or designated authority for authenticity before it is registered. The petitioners submit that the complainant herself participated in obtaining certified copies of the registered documents.

4. It is submitted that the FIR has been registered on the basis of a civil dispute over consideration and property transaction, and that such a dispute is ordinarily adjudicable by a competent civil court.

5. It is submitted that the FIR has been registered on the basis of mere suspicion and civil disagreement over consideration, amounting to an abuse of the criminal process. It is further argued that the complainant herself sought and signed for the certified copy of the registered document from the Registration Department, which indicates acknowledgment of the registry. Thus, the allegations raised are nothing but a civil dispute clothed as a criminal offence.

6. Counsel for the petitioners relies on the settled principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], where it was held that the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. The Court observed that criminal proceedings should not be initiated in cases where the allegations, even if assumed to be true, constitute a civil dispute or where the allegations are manifestly false or untenable.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition, contending that a prima facie case has been made out and that no interference is warranted at this stage. The State emphasized that the allegations, if taken at face value, indicate deception and fraudulent intent in connection with property registration and transfers.

8. Upon considering the submissions of both sides and the material on record, it is apparent that the petition raises questions regarding the scope of criminal liability in property-related transactions. The complainant alleges fraudulent acts in relation t