Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Bilkis vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4381
1 MCRC-7518-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7518 of 2024
SMT BILKIS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mudit Goswami- Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for respondent [R-2].
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Criminal Revision No. 368/2023, arising out of the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, in RCT No. 3290/2023. The Revisional Court allowed the revision, thereby reversing the order passed by the learned JMFC, Gwalior whereby the petitioner was discharged from the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging that she had agreed to purchase a residential house owned by the petitioner, situated at Ayodhya Nagri, Chiraiyo Ka Pura, Gwalior, admeasuring 1,000 square feet, for a total consideration of Rs.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/7/2026 1:02:24 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4381 2 MCRC-7518-2024 29,25,000/-. An agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 30.05.2022, pursuant to which the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as earnest money, with a stipulation that the sale deed would be executed within three months. It is further alleged that on 21.06.2022, the complainant paid an additional amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, and on 06.08.2022, she paid Rs. 7,00,000/- to one Smt. Bilkis. On the same date, another agreement was executed, acknowledging receipt of a total amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- and stipulating that the remaining amount would be paid within one month, and the sale deed would be executed within the said period. According to the complainant, despite the expiry of the stipulated period and repeated requests, the petitioner neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the amount received and continued to delay the matter on one pretext or another. Consequently, she lodged a complaint seeking legal action. On the basis of the oral complaint, the police registered FIR No. 962/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, after taking cognizance and at the stage of framing of charge, considered an application under Section 239 CrPC filed by the petitioner seeking discharge. Upon hearing both parties and considering the material on record, the Trial Court allowed the application and discharged the petitioner, holding that no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant preferred a criminal revision before the Revisional Court, which was allowed, setting aside the discharge order passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the legality and propriety of the order Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/7/2026 1:02:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4381 3 MCRC-7518-2024 passed by the Revisional Court, the present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the written complaint nor the FIR discloses any material evidence to establish the petitioner's complicity in the alleged offence. It is contended that the Revisional Court, while allowing the revision, failed to consider the limited scope of revision under Section 397 CrPC, which is confined to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order, or the regularity of proceedings, and does not authorize the Revisional Court to act as an appellate forum to reappreciate evidence. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631 , wherein it was held that the revisionary power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine or casual manner, and the High Court or Sessions Court cannot appreciate evidence in the manner of a trial or appellate court. The scope of revision is restricted to correcting manifest errors of law or procedure which may occasion miscarriage of justice if not corrected.
4. It is further submitted that the allegations made by the complainant pertain to an alleged breach of a contractual agreement, which constitutes a civil dispute and not a criminal offence. The complainant's attempt to transform a civil claim into a criminal case to avoid payment of court fees or to exert pressure upon the petitioner is impermissible under law. The offence under Section 406 IPC arises only when property is entrusted to a person for a specific purpose, with limited control over it, and misappropriation occurs.
In the present case, the payments made by the complainant were part of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/7/2026 1:02:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4381 4 MCRC-7518-2024 consideration for the property and cannot be construed as property "entrusted" to the petitioner. There is no allegation of fraud, dishonest inducement, or misappropriation, and the petitioner was not barred from transferring the property. The remedy available to the complainant was to file a civil suit for specific performance, not a criminal complaint.
5. It is further submitted that even if all allegations are taken at face value, the FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner. Therefore, the Revisional Court erred in setting aside the discharge order passed by the Trial Court, which rightly held that no criminal liability under Section 406 IPC was made out. It is thus prayed that the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge be set aside, and the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned JMFC, Gwalior, in RCT No. 3290/2023, discharging the petitioner, be upheld.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court and submits that the learned JMFC committed a manifest error of law in discharging the petitioner despite the existence of prima facie material disclosing the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. It is contended that at the stage of framing of charge or considering an application under Section 239 CrPC, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists and not to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or determine the probability of conviction. The allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet clearly disclose that substantial amounts were paid by the complainant for a specific purpose, Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/7/2026 1:02:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4381 5 MCRC-7518-2024 i.e., execution of the sale deed, and despite repeated demands, the petitioner neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the money, thereby giving rise to a reasonable inference of dishonest intention. The Revisional Court has merely corrected the patent illegality committed by the Trial Court and has not reappreciated evidence as an appellate court. It is further submitted that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised to set aside a perverse or illegal order, and the discharge order, having been passed in disregard of settled principles governing framing of charge, was rightly interfered with. Hence, no case for interference under Section 482 CrPC is made out.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner induced the complainant to part with large sums of money on the assurance of executing a sale deed within a stipulated period and thereafter deliberately failed to honour his commitments, while retaining the money, which clearly establishes dishonest misappropriation. The repeated execution of agreements and receipt of money demonstrate entrustment for a specific purpose, and the petitioner's conduct in neither executing the sale deed nor returning the amount despite demands attracts the ingredients of Section 406 IPC. It is further contended that the plea of "purely civil dispute" is a camouflage, as the existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution when the allegations disclose a criminal offence. The Revisional Court has rightly set aside the erroneous discharge order to prevent miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 CrPC deserves to be dismissed.
8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/7/2026 1:02:24 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4381 6 MCRC-7518-2024
9. It is apposite to reiterate the settled legal position regarding the scope of consideration at the stage of framing of charge or discharge and the contours of revisional and inherent jurisdiction. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to see whether the material on record, if taken at face value, discloses the commission of an offence and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to conduct a roving or meticulous inquiry into the evidence, nor is it to weigh the probative value of the material.
10. Equally well settled is the principle that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited to examining the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, and the regularity of proceedings. The Revisional Court is not expected to substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only when the order under challenge suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity.
11. In the present case, the allegations as emerging from the FIR and charge-sheet reveal that the complainant entered into an agreement to purchase a residential house from the petitioner, paid earnest money and thereafter further amounts towards sale consideration. The grievance of the complainant is that despite expiry of the stipulated period and repeated requests, the petitioner neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the amount.
12. On the basis of these allegations, FIR was registered under Section 406 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The learned JMFC, Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/7/2026 1:02:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4381 7 MCRC-7518-2024 while considering the application under Section 239 CrPC, examined the nature of allegations and the material collected during investigation and came to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties essentially arises out of an agreement to sell and alleged non-performance thereof, and the necessary ingredients of criminal breach of trust are not made out. Accordingly, the petitioner was discharged.
13. The Revisional Court, while setting aside the discharge order, has proceeded on the premise that since money was paid for a specific purpose and the petitioner failed to either execute the sale deed or return the amount, a prima facie case under Section 406 IPC is made out. This Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Court has exceeded the permissible limits of revisional jurisdiction.
14. For constituting an offence under Section 406 IPC, the essential ingredients are entrustment of property or dominion over property and dishonest misappropriation or conversion of that property or dishonest use or disposal of the property in violation of any legal contract or direction. Mere failure to keep a promise or mere breach of contractual terms, without any allegation or material to show dishonest intention at the inception or subsequent dishonest misappropriation, does not ipso facto constitute criminal breach of trust.
15. In the present case, the money paid by the complainant was admittedly part of sale consideration under an agreement to sell. Such payment, by itself, cannot be equated with "entrustment" of property for a Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/7/2026 1:02:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4381 8 MCRC-7518-2024 specific purpose in the sense contemplated under Section 405 IPC. There is no material in the FIR or charge-sheet to indicate that the petitioner received the money with any restriction or for any limited purpose other than as part of contractual consideration, or he was holding the money in a fiduciary capacity.
16. The allegations primarily disclose non-performance of contractual obligations. Even if the allegations are taken at their face value, they reflect a dispute of civil nature arising out of an agreement to sell, for which appropriate civil remedies such as suit for specific performance or recovery of money are available. It is also pertinent to note that there are no specific allegations indicating dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the time of entering into the agreement or at the time of receiving the amounts. The FIR does not allege that the petitioner had no intention to sell the property from the very beginning or that he induced the complainant by practicing deception. Absence of such foundational allegations is fatal to the prosecution under Section 406 IPC.
17. The learned JMFC, after considering the material on record, took a plausible and legally sustainable view that no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. The order of discharge cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or suffering from any jurisdictional error warranting interference in revision. The Revisional Court, while setting aside the discharge order, has virtually reassessed the material and substituted its own view for that of the Trial Court, which is impermissible in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly when the view taken by the Trial Court was a possible and Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/7/2026 1:02:24 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4381 9 MCRC-7518-2024 reasonable view.
18. The inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is intended to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice. Allowing the criminal prosecution to continue in a matter which essentially discloses a civil dispute would amount to abuse of process.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Criminal Revision No. 368/2023, is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.
20. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Revisional Court is hereby set aside. The order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, in RCT No. 3290/2023, discharging the petitioner from the offence under Section 406 IPC, is restored.
21. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not preclude the complainant from availing appropriate civil remedies in accordance with law.
22. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ojha Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 2/7/2026 1:02:24 PM