The court highlighted that mere bald assertions are insufficient to establish conspiracy; the lack of intent negates criminal allegations.

1. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2017 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (Bench at Indore) passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.12383 of 2016, whereby a petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short, CrPC) seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 14th May, 2016 and subsequent proceedings in Crime No.241 of 2016, was refused.

2. The facts, as emanating from the record, are that: -
2.1. House No.D - 90, Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam, was allotted on hire purchase basis to one Gopaldas s/o Narayandas, vide agreement between him and the Madhya Pradesh State Housing Board on 10th January, 1991. He sold the said property, and handed over possession thereof, to one Mangi Bai upon receipt of Rs.12,500/- as consideration. It was agreed inter se these parties that upon being granted the registration of the house, Gopaldas would execute a sale deed in favour of Mangi Bai. An agreement to sell to such effect was drawn up on 11th January, 1991.
2.2. Mangi Bai, subsequently for a consideration of Rs.19,000/- sold the said property to respondent No. 2 (Hereinafter, 'the complainant') vide agreement to sell dated 17th December, 1994.
2.3. One Ashok Dayya, who has been made co - accused in the complaint, has allegedly, in connivance with other persons namely, Ramesh Sharma, Jitendra Sharma, Narendra @ Pappu Sharma and members of the Housing Board, forged the Power of Attorney of the original seller - Gopaldas in his favour and got the said property registered in his own name.
2.4. The appellant herein is an official of the Housing Board and it is said that the act perpetrated by Ashok was with his aid and assistance. It is against this transfer of property that the subject FIR was lodged, and after investigation a chargesheet filed under S.419, S.420, S.467, S.468, S.471 and S.120B r/w S.34, Indian Penal Code 1860 (For short ' IPC ') against five persons, namely, Ashok (A - 1), Ramesh Chand (A - 2), Nanalal (A - 3), Krishna Singh (A - 4) and Dinesh Kumar D.K. (A - 5).

3. The appellant, aggrieved by the above action, preferred the petition for quashing before the High Court. The reasoning for the High Court refusing such prayer is found in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment and order. For ease of reference, the same is extracted hereinbelow: -
"(7) From the charge - sheet it is clear that police found prima facie case against the applicant and filed charge - sheet against him. In the charge - sheet it is clearly mentioned that applicant without inquiring whether alleged power of attorney was executed by Gopaldas or not in connivance with other co - accused for getting illegal profit on the basis of forged power of attorney executed sale deed of suit house in favour of co - accused Ashok Dayya. In the statement of Rajesh, Nilesh, Deepak, Ashish, Mangibai, Nemubai @ Nirmlabai, Manjubai and Gopaldas it is mentioned that co - accused Ashok Dayya in connivance with employee and officers of Housing Board got sale deed of suit house executed in his favour on the basis of forged power of attorney of Gopaldas. So prima facie It appears that applicant was also involved in the said crime.
Whether applicant was involved in conspiracy or he bonafidely without knowing the fact that power of attorney produced by co - accused Ashok Dayya is forged executed the sale deed of suit house in favour of co - accused Ashok Dayya is a matter of fact which requires evidence to decide. Prima facie involvement of applicant in the crime appears from the charge - sheet and case dairy statement of witnesses, so no question of quashing of FIR arises."

4. Before proce