##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI th ON THE 15 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8058 of 2024 PREM MASIH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Anil Khare - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Harjas Singh Chhabra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Prashant Singh - learned Advocate General with Shri B.D. Singh - Additional Advocate General - for respondent/State.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.35/2023 registered by the Economic Offence Wing, Jabalpur Unit, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The prosecution case, as disclosed from the FIR, is that during investigation of another crime registered against co-accused P.C. Singh, it came to light that on 07.06.2019 a lease/assignment in respect of land admeasuring 4000 sq.ft., situated at Plot Nos.15/1, 15/8, 15/9 and 15/10, Block No.4, Civil Station, Jabalpur, was executed in favour of P.C. Singh for a consideration of Rs.74,34,920/-. The FIR alleges that the land stood in the name of United Church of North India Trust Association (UCNITA) and the petitioner, who was its Managing Director, executed the assignment/lease deed in favour of co- accused P.C. Singh. During investigation, a report was obtained from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranjhi, regarding the revenue records of the land. According to the said report, the earlier lease had expired on 31.03.1999. However, the Nazul Khasra entry relied upon at the time of registration of the transaction mentioned the expiry date as 31.03.2029. The prosecution has consequently alleged that the relevant Nazul Khasra entry was prima facie forged and that the petitioner and co-accused P.C. Singh entered into a conspiracy to sub-lease Government land, thereby causing wrongful loss to the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that the FIR does not disclose any specific overt act on his part except that he signed the lease deed in his capacity as Managing Director of UCNITA. It is submitted that the Committee of Management of UCNITA had authorised the transaction pursuant to the Bishop Rehabilitation Policy and the relevant resolutions dated 23.03.2019 and 03.05.2019. Copies of the resolutions and minutes have been filed as Annexure-P/2 and Annexure-P/3, while the assignment/lease deed has been filed as Annexure-P/4. Learned counsel submits that the alleged forged Nazul Khasra entry was not prepared or submitted by the petitioner and that there is no allegation that he derived any personal benefit from the transaction. It is further submitted that the lease was subsequently renewed up to 31.03.2029 and, therefore, there was no loss to the State exchequer.

The relevant renewal documents have been filed as Annexure-P/5. Reliance is also placed upon Form-H and the Revenue Book Circular dated 01.05.2018, filed as Annexures-P/6 and P/7, to contend that no criminality can be attributed to the petitioner.

4. It is further argued that the petitioner was merely an employee of UCNITA and was acting pursuant to the resolutions of its Committee of Management. The consideration was paid directly to UCNITA and not to the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that there was neither dishonest intention nor any material showing that the petitioner participated in preparation or use of any forged document. According to learned counsel, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, the ingredients of Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are not made out. It is thus prayed that the FIR and consequential proceedings be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supre