IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 367 of 2026 NARENDRA JAIN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for the State.

Shri Amit Lahoti- Advocate for the complainant.

ORDER This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.652/2024 registered at Police Station -Kotwali, District - Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 420, 467 468, 471, 34 of IPC,. His earlier first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.04.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.51845 of 2024.

2. As per the prosecution case, a written complaint was made by the complainant that the applicant and the complainant came into an oral agreement for a land situated at survey no. 80 min 4, the area of property is 6000 sq ft. The present applicant is purchaser of land and as per allegation levied, five lakhs rupees were transferred by RTGS on 09.05.2023. Later it has been alleged that the applicant along with other co-accused fraudulently made a sale deed in their favour where the co-accused were just witnesses. Further, the whole sale deed was prepared fraudulently as the complainant was not even in India and it was prepared to cause loss to the complainant.

Hence the FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the primary issue is whether an F.I.R. can be registered regarding a matter that is already the subject of pending civil litigation. It is an undisputed fact that a civil suit was filed concerning the same property and based on the same agreement. Consequently, the validity of the agreement must be determined by the Civil Court, where the complainant is already a participant. It is submitted that the complainant is misusing the machinery of law by lodging an F.I.R. to exert undue pressure on the applicant. A civil dispute cannot be allowed to be cloaked with a criminal nature. In the present case, the civil dispute has been pending for over a year, and the parties are already engaged in litigation. Notably, the respondent has been unsuccessful in the civil proceedings thus far, as an injunction was granted in favor of the applicant—an order that remains unchallenged by the private respondent. Therefore, the criminal proceedings are an abuse of the process of law. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and has not criminal or tainted background. No further custodial interrogation is required in the matter. The applicant is permanent resident of District Shivpuri (M.P.), therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. Hence, prayed for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the present FIR, dated 18.10.2024, was registered on a complaint made by the respondent/Complainant based on acts of forgery, cheating, misrepresentation, and fraudulent conduct committed by the applicant in relation to the subject property. These acts constitute clear criminal offences and cannot be diluted or treated as a mere civil dispute.

5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.

6. The Court notes that the existence of a transaction between the parties regarding the purchase of the plot is an admitted fact.

7. Prima facie, it is evident from the record that FIR No. 884/2023 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, a