IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28951 of 2022 TANVEER Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri. Manish Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sunil Kapoor - GA for the State.

ORDER

1. Heard on IA Nos. 5714 of 2024, which is an application for taking additional documents on record.

2. On due consideration, the same is allowed and the alleged documents are taken on record.

3. This petition has been preferred by petitioner Tanveer under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered at crime no. 404 of 2021, Police Station-Rajgarh, Distric-Rajgarh for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and all consequential proceedings arising thereof.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, contended that the impugned FIR is registered on the basis of order dated 08/07/2021 passed exparte against the petitioner in Case No. 0001/B/121/2021-22 by the Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora). The Collector Rajgarh (Biaora), on consideration of the revenue records, found that the mutation entries in respect of the land bearing Survey nos. 33/7, 118 and 120 are forged by manipulation of the revenue records and directed the Tehsildar, Rajgarh (Biaora) to register FIR against the petitioner Tanveer. Accordingly, the impugned FIR was registered. Learned counsel referring to Annexure-P/2 and Annexure -P/4, submits that the petitioner has purchased the land comprised in survey No. 33/7 from Gajendra Kumar S/o Radharaman. He could not produced the sale deed before the Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora) as he was proceeded exparte in the proceeding. The sale deed clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was bonafide purchaser. The seller Gajendra had specifically mentioned in the sale deed that the land does not belong to the Government. Further, he had purchased the lands bearing Survey Nos. 118 and 120 from Shivkumar S/o Lalchand @ Radharaman by th registered sale deed dated 14 October, 2021. The lands comprised in Survey Nos. 33/7, 118 and 120 have already been released for allotment (kabilkasht). No document is available showing that the lands in dispute were the Government lands, therefore, the Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora) committed manifest error in directing registration of FIR. The consequential FIR does not constitute the alleged offence against the petitioner. The impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the State, referring to the impugned order, submitted that the Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora), on verification of the revenue record, concluded that the Survey No. 33/7, Survey No. 118 and Survey No. 120 of Village Chandpura were recorded in the revenue record as Government land reserved for grazing (charnoi). The land bearing Survey No. 33/7 was later allotted to Gajendra Kumar as Government leasee (Shashkiya Pattedar) for ten years. Gajendra Kumar had no right to transfer the land, which was allotted to him as Govt. lease holder. The sale deeds of the Government lands are illegal, therefore, the mutation in revenue record on the basis of sale deed was manipulation of the Government record. The Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora) did not commit any error in directing registration of FIR for manipulation and forgery of revenue record against the petitioner. The impugned FIR clearly makes out the alleged offence. The petition is meritless.

6. Heard both the parties and perused the case diary as also the record.

7. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 after an elaborate consideration of the matter and after referring to its various earlier decisions, has observed in para

108 as under:-

''108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions rela