IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR ON THE 17TH OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45335 of 2019 SMT. PUSHPA Versus SUMIT NARANG AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Yogesh Kumar Mittal, advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rishiraj Trivedi, advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri B.S. Gandhi, advocate for respondent No.2.

…..................................................................................................................

ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing of the private complaint and the summoning order dated 13.04.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain regarding registration of complaint for offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of IPC.

2. The exposition of facts, in brief, giving rise to present petition, is as under:-

A. Sumit Narang filed a private complaint against Aadarsh Vikram Sahakari Grah Nirman Samiti, Ujjain through its President Yogesh Sharma (respondent No.1), Yogesh Sharma (respondent No.2), Pushpa Maheshwari (respondent No.3) and Shyamsundar Rathi (respondent No.4) inter-alia alleging that the he (complainant Sumit Narang) had purchased plot No. 120, Shivaji Park Colony, Ujjain from Pushpa Maheshwari through registered sale deed dated 26.2.2003. Pushpa Maheshwari had purchased said plot from respondent No. 1/ society through registered sale deed dated 2.5.2000. Pushpa Maheshwari had informed the complainant that respondent No.1 society had earlier sold the plot to Rajesh Rathi. Rajesh Rathi had executed a power of attorney in favour of his nephew Shyamsundar Rathi. Shyamsundar Rathi had surrendered the plot on 31.3.1995. Thereafter, respondent no.1 society had transferred the plot to Pushpa Maheshwari.

B. The complainant had mutation of the plot from Municipal Corporation, Ujjain on the basis of registered sale deed. The adjacent plots No. 121 and 15 belong to the complainant and his mother. The complainant had applied for permission to construct which was granted vide letter dated 2.6.2003. The complainant and his mother had taken loan of Rs. 25 lacs from ICICI Bank and constructed a house thereupon.

C. Rajesh Rathi filed a civil suit No. 66A/2004 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed. The Xth Additional District Judge, Ujjain vide judgment dated 25.1.2016 decreed the suit in favour of Rajesh Rathi and declared the registered sale deed executed in favour of Pushpa Maheshwari dated 2.6.2000 and the registered sale deed in favour of complainant Sumit Narang dated 26.2.2003, null and void. It was further declared that the construction on the plot is illegal. The appeal against the judgment and decree is pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

D. It is alleged that all the respondent conspired to defraud and cheat the complainant. The respondents had knowledge that they did not have any right, title or interest over the disputed plot. The respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 have conspired and executed a forge surrender deed of the disputed plot to cheat the complainant. Pushpa Maheshwari/respondent No.2 did not file any written statement and remained ex-parte in the civil suit. Therefore, all the accused have committed offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

E. The Judicial Magistrate First Class. Ujjain recorded statement of the complainant/Sumit Narang under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on 30.10.2017. On the basis of statement of complainant, the Judicial Magistrate First Class vide impugned order dated 13.4.2018 took cognisance for offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC against respondents No. 1 to 4 mentioned in the complaint and directed issuance of summons to secure their presence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, submitted that the petitioner Pushpa Maheshwari was a bonafide purchaser of the plot in disp