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

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24432 of 2019 RAMDEVI Versus RAMKARAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shyam Kishore Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 23/2019, whereby the revisional court affirmed the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, District Bhind in Criminal Case No. 385/2018, rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a widow belonging to a rural background, filed a complaint alleging that the respondents, who are her brother-in-law and his son, committed fraud by obtaining her thumb impressions on certain documents under the pretext of opening a bank account and thereby got a sale deed executed in respect of her land without her knowledge or consent. It is alleged that on coming to know about the said sale deed, the petitioner demanded return of the same, but the respondents refused and threatened to take possession of the land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit and subsequently a criminal complaint, which came to be dismissed by the trial court. The revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the revisional court. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint without properly appreciating the material and evidence brought on record and that the impugned orders are based on incorrect facts.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

On careful consideration, this Court finds no substance in the submissions advanced. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. This Court does not sit as a court of appeal or revision to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.

From perusal of the complaint and the statements recorded, it is evident that the dispute essentially pertains to execution of a sale deed relating to immovable property. The courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the allegations made by the petitioner primarily give rise to a civil dispute, for which civil remedies have already been availed. The learned Magistrate, after due consideration of the material, found no sufficient ground to proceed against the respondents, and the said finding has been rightly affirmed by the revisional court.

It is well settled that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for settling civil disputes or for exerting pressure upon the opposite party. The mere allegation of fraud, without prima facie material constituting the ingredients of the alleged offences, is not sufficient to set the criminal law in motion.

The petitioner has failed to point out any perversity, jurisdictional error, or abuse of process of court in the impugned orders warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Both the courts below have passed well-reasoned orders after appreciating the material available on record. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)

JUDGE ar