Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1566
1 WP-40219-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 13th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 40219 of 2024
DINESH CHATURVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M P S Raghuwanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri R K Shrivastava
- Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Ajay Singh Rathore - Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the impugned application and all proceedings under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C including order-sheets passed by the Ld. JMFC in complaint No.77/2024 (Annexure P/1) and also consequential FIR at Crime No.296/2024 (Annexure P/2) of Police Station Raun, District Bhind may be directed to be quashed.
(ii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted."
2. According to the prosecution case, two registered sale deeds were allegedly executed in favour of Sanjeev Singh in the fictitious names of Naresh and Bhagwandas. It is alleged that Anil Singh and Kumari Gunjan acted as witnesses in the registered sale deed executed in the name of Naresh, whereas Anil Singh and Karan Singh were witnesses to another sale Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/16/2026 5:46:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1566 2 WP-40219-2024 deed executed in the name of Bhagwandas. It is further the case of the complainant that the aforesaid persons presented forged voter identity cards on the basis of which the registered sale deeds were prepared and uploaded, and the same were executed in the presence of the Deputy Registrar. However, it is specifically stated that the persons who appeared before the present petitioner, who is a service provider, had affixed their own photographs in the applications. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the private respondents/complainants before the learned JMFC, Lahar. Learned JMFC vide order dated 11.11.2024 issued directions to the police for registration of the FIR, pursuant to which the present FIR has been registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not the allegation of the complainants that the photographs were forged by the petitioner or that he made some other persons to impersonate the executants at the time of registration. No mechanism has been developed by the State Government to enable the petitioner to independently verify the identity of the persons applying for registration of sale deeds. As per the prescribed procedure, an applicant is required to furnish his/her photographs and relevant land-related documents, whereafter the sale deed is uploaded and presented for execution before the Deputy Registrar. The petitioner has no authority, power, or means to verify the authenticity of government-issued identity documents beyond what is submitted by the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/16/2026 5:46:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1566 3 WP-40219-2024 service provider appointed by the competent authority to render services in the office of the Registrar, Bhind (M.P.). Even otherwise, no prima facie case under the aforementioned sections of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be said to have committed any act of fraud or forgery, as the persons who appeared before him themselves executed the sale deeds and affixed their own photographs. The petitioner was neither expected nor empowered to verify the genuineness of the voter cards or other identity documents produced by the applicants.
5. It is further submitted that the complainants have not alleged that the present petitioner received any money or other consideration in connection with the alleged offence. The petitioner is merely a service provider whose role is strictly limited to uploading documents furnished by the applicants and transmitting the same through the designated portal to the office of the Deputy Registrar for the purpose of registration. The petitioner duly discharged this ministerial function in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the petitioner neither had any control over nor any knowledge of the alleged acts of forgery or fraud, if any, committed by third parties. In the absence of any allegation or material demonstrating mens rea, inducement, or active participation, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner for acts allegedly committed by others. Mere performance of a technical or facilitative role does not attract the ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, or 120-B of the IPC.
6. It is further submitted that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has signed the said order showing herself to be posted in District Ratlam, Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/16/2026 5:46:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1566 4 WP-40219-2024 whereas she was required to exercise jurisdiction and sign the order as JMFC, Lahar, District Bhind. Such a defect goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the very foundation of the criminal proceedings. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the criminal proceedings initiated vide Crime No. 294/2024 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered pursuant to the order passed by the learned JMFC, Lahar, District Bhind under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., be quashed insofar as they relate to the present petitioner, in the interest of justice.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 submits that the co-accused, Vinay Singh Jadon, who was posted as Sub- Registrar, had filed a writ petition bearing No. 1220 of 2025, which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.01.2025. In the said order, the Coordinate Bench had duly considered the allegations levelled against the Trial Magistrate and categorically held that whether the petitioner therein was actively involved in the execution of a forged sale deed or whether it was a bona fide mistake on his part is a highly disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage and can be decided only after evidence is recorded.
8. It is further submitted that the present petitioner, Dinesh Chaturvedi, has filed this writ petition seeking identical reliefs as were sought by the co- accused Vinay Singh Jadon in Writ Petition No. 1220 of 2025. The facts and reliefs sought in the present petition are the same and squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench. Therefore, the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/16/2026 5:46:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1566 5 WP-40219-2024 petition also deserves to be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5 further submits that the petitioner, who claims to be a Service Provider, was appointed as such vide licence dated 30.03.2023 issued by the Collector of Stamps, District Bhind, for the period from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2025. The area of operation of the petitioner was specifically restricted to Lahar Road, Bhind (up to Manpura), Tehsil Bhind, District Bhind (M.P.). Notably, Tehsil Raun, District Bhind, did not fall within his authorized jurisdiction. Despite the aforesaid limitation, it is alleged that the petitioner, in connivance and conspiracy with other co-accused persons, mala fide affixed forged photographs of respondents No. 4 and 5, annexed forged documents, uploaded forged sale deeds in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Raun, and facilitated their registration.
10. Learned counsel submits that the following issues arise for consideration: (i) whether the petitioner was authorized to operate as a Service Provider in Tehsil Raun; (ii) whether the petitioner was actively involved in the execution of the forged sale deeds; and (iii) whether the petitioner intentionally prepared and uploaded forged sale deeds after affixing forged photographs and documents of respondents No. 4 and 5 in conspiracy with other co-accused persons. These are highly disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can only be determined after recording of evidence during trial. Therefore, it is submitted that the present writ petition is premature and misconceived and deserves to Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/16/2026 5:46:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1566 6 WP-40219-2024 be dismissed. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460.
11. Learned counsel for the State submits that the application filed by respondents No. 4 and 5 was registered as Case No. 77/2024 before the learned JMFC, Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.). Upon due consideration of the documents filed along with the application and the averments made therein, the learned JMFC reached a prima facie conclusion that offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC are made out against the accused persons and accordingly directed the SHO, Police Station Raun, District Bhind (M.P.), to register an FIR. It is submitted that the mention of "District Ratlam" instead of "District Bhind" in the impugned order is merely a typographical error. The order directing registration of FIR is legal, proper, and valid, and no interference is warranted at this stage. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. From a careful reading of the complaint and the material placed on record, it emerges that the gravamen of the allegations pertains to execution of registered sale deeds in fictitious names on the basis of allegedly forged voter identity cards, resulting in wrongful transfer of property. The principal accusation is against the persons who allegedly impersonated the executants and against those who purportedly benefited from such transactions. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, his role, as reflected from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/16/2026 5:46:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1566 7 WP-40219-2024 complaint itself, is that of a service provider engaged in uploading documents furnished by the applicants on the official portal for presentation before the registering authority.
14. It is significant to note that there is no specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner forged the photographs, fabricated identity documents, or impersonated any person. On the contrary, it is specifically stated that the persons who appeared before the petitioner had affixed their own photographs in the applications and personally appeared before the registering authority for execution of the sale deeds. There is also no allegation that the petitioner received any pecuniary benefit or consideration so as to infer any dishonest intention or criminal conspiracy on his part.
15. The procedure prescribed by the State Government for registration of sale deeds, as borne out from the submissions and not disputed by the respondents, requires the service provider to upload the documents and photographs as furnished by the applicants. No statutory duty, mechanism, or authority has been vested in such service providers to independently verify the genuineness of government-issued identity documents like voter identity cards. In the absence of any such statutory obligation or enabling provision, criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner merely because forged documents were allegedly produced by third parties, unless there is prima facie material to show knowledge, mens rea, or active participation in the alleged forgery or fraud.
16. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner was operating beyond his territorial jurisdiction and was therefore involved in a criminal Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/16/2026 5:46:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1566 8 WP-40219-2024 conspiracy is also a matter which, even if assumed to be true for the sake of argument, would at best constitute an administrative or contractual violation of the terms of licence. Such a violation, by itself, cannot give rise to offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 or 120-B of the IPC in the absence of foundational facts disclosing dishonest intention, forgery, or use of forged documents with knowledge.
17. The reliance placed by the respondents on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.1220 of 2025 is misplaced in the facts of the present case. The role attributed to the co-accused Sub-Registrar stands on a different footing, as the registering authority exercises statutory powers and has distinct legal duties at the time of registration of documents. The petitioner herein is neither a registering authority nor vested with statutory powers to authenticate identity documents. Therefore, the principle of parity cannot be mechanically applied without examining the specific role and allegations against each accused.
18. This Court is conscious of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (supra) . At the same time, it is equally well settled that where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected do not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.
19. In the present case, even if the allegations in the complaint and Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/16/2026 5:46:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1566 9 WP-40219-2024 FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no ingredients of the alleged offences are made out against the petitioner. The criminal law cannot be set in motion to conduct a roving and fishing inquiry against a person whose role is purely ministerial and mechanical, absent any allegation of mens rea or active complicity.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court and would result in miscarriage of justice.
21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. All proceedings initiated under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including all order- sheets passed by the learned JMFC in Complaint Case No. 77/2024, as well as the FIR registered as Crime No. 296/2024 at Police Station Raun, District Bhind, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed insofar as they pertain to the present petitioner.
22. It is, however, clarified that the investigation and proceedings against the other accused persons shall continue in accordance with law and shall remain unaffected by this order.
No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ojha Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/16/2026 5:46:17 PM