IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3529 of 2025 AJEET KUMAR SHUKLA Versus SAMPAT KUMAR SHUKLA Appearance:

Shri Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

ORDER The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Sections 527 read with

528 of BNSS, 2023, thereby challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure A/1), whereby the trial Court allowed the complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Chandiya, to register an FIR against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the complainant alleged that the petitioner fraudulently availed benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY). On 06.07.2018, the petitioner applied for financial assistance by submitting false information and forged documents. Instead of using his own land, as required under the scheme, he allegedly relied on his father’s plot to obtain approval. It was further claimed that the construction was carried out on a different parcel of land located about one and a half kilometers away from the sanctioned site. Rather than building a residential house, the petitioner allegedly misused the funds to construct three shops, along with manipulating official documents to conceal these acts.

3. The learned Trial Court, upon calling for a report from the concerned police station, passed an order dated 15.01.2025, wherein it recorded findings regarding the alleged embezzlement of funds and the use of forged documents in the construction of the house. Accordingly, the Trial Court directed the registration of an FIR against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order directing registration of the FIR has been assailed by way of the present petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the registration of the FIR amounts to an abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that, even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted as gospel truth, no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. Emphasis has also been placed on the police report, wherein it is stated that no case is made out against the petitioner. It is lastly argued that the present complaint has been filed as a counterblast to settle a pending dispute between the petitioner and the complainant.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has drawn the attention of this Hon’ble Court to the interlocutory application, contending that the factum of illegal sale of land by the petitioner stands established, and has prayed for taking cognizance against the petitioner, the Tehsildar, and the Patwari of Village and Tehsil Chandia, District Umaria. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the respondent, as well as the learned Government Advocate, has supported the impugned order, submitting that no case for grant of relief is made out.

6. Heard the parties at length, and with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the material available on record, as well as the impugned order passed by the learned trial court.

7. On perusal of the record, it reveals that while preparing the report, the police recorded a finding that reports had been called for from the Tehsildar, Chandiya, and the Nagar Parishad. It is further revealed in the report that the house constructed by the petitioner is not situated on his own land. Although other points were considered in favour of the petitioner, the construction was not raised upon his land, which is a condition precedent for obtaining financial assistance under the PMAY scheme. Prima facie, this appears to be in violation of the ter