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

th

ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24858 of 2023 KESHAV SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha- Advocate for respondent No.2.

Shri Brajesh Kumar Tyagi - PL for the State.

ORDER This petition is under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking/482 of the Cr.P.C. quashment of the order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Revision No. 27/2023. The learned revisional Court had interfered with the order dated 04.03.2023 of the trial Court framing charges under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against respondent No.2/ Milan Kapoor and others. The petitioner prays for setting aside the said revision order and for restoration of the charge framing order dated 04.03.2023.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and co-accused Ranveer Singh and Maharana Pratap are real brothers. A dispute regarding ancestral cultivation land situate at Village Sirmiti, District Morena was the subject matter of a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and partition. During pendency, the parties settled the civil suit by way of compromise by which Survey Nos. 16/02 (0.19 acre) and 177 Min (0.02 acre) were allotted in favour of the petitioner. Prior to such compromise, the same lands had been sold by the mother of the parties, Smt. Dhanvanti, in favour of respondent No.2 Milan Kapoor in a registered sale deed, where co- accused Ranveer Singh and Maharana Pratap were witnesses. The petitioner alleges that the sale deed and existence of the transaction was deliberately not disclosed during compromise proceedings. Respondent No.2 did not seek mutation for these lands for almost six years but moved an application for mutation immediately after the compromise decree in favour of the petitioner was passed. Therefore, FIR dated 08.06.2017 was lodged. On conclusion of investigation, the Trial Court framed charges against Milan Kapoor under Sections 420/120-B IPC vide order dated 04.03.2023. In revision, Sessions Judge, Morena quashed the charges against respondent No.2 by order dated

16.05.2023, therefore, this petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revisional order was passed without hearing the complainant, as a necessary party. Prima facie material for offences under Section 420 and Section 120-B IPC existed. Documentary and circumstantial evidence indicated conspiracy and cheating, but, the sessions court, while ignoring the material available on record prima facies implicating the petitioner, has adopted only technical approach. Hence, this petition be allowed and order dated 16.05.2023 may be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that in police report, FIR and statement recorded under Section 161 there are not any allegations that Mrs. Dhanvanti was not owner of such lands according to will of Bhogiram. It is also to be noted that petitioner Milan Kapoor was not plaintiff or defendant of civil suit and he was not party in compromise petition. There is not any allegation against respondent No.2/Milan Kapoor that he has taken an active part in compromise and there was an agreement between respondent No.2 and co- accused for compromise. In charge-sheet and documents filed with it, main allegations for playing fraud with complainant are against co-accused Ranveer Singh and Maharana Pratap. Only an allegation against respondent No.2/Milan Kapoor is that after sale deed, mutation of purchased land was not done by him. Only such allegation will not be ground for charges of offence punishable under section 120-B and 420 IPC.

Learned counsel for respondent/State also opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by supporting the impugned order.

Heard counsel for the rival parties and pe