Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dileep Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1 MCRC-27379-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 23rd OF JULY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27379 of 2024
DILEEP SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Navaneet Dubey - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Advocate for the objector/respondent.
Shri Santosh Yadav- Deputy Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant Dileep Singh Yadav for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.627 of 2024 of Police Station-Kotwali, District-Panna (MP) for commission of the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
Brief facts of the FIR is that complainant along with his friend entered into an agreement on 05.05.2015 to puchase land admeasuing 2 acres from Khasra No.3293/1 and 1 acre land from Khasra No.3299 for an amount of consideration 45 lacs and 31.75 lacs respectively. For which, an amount of Rs.1,11,000/- was paid through cheque in advance. But the applicant made another agreement with one Ram Bhagat Patel Advocate on 16.12.2013 and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 7/25/2024 3:44:05 PM 2 MCRC-27379-2024 30.12.2013 for the same land and committed fraud with the complainant. Thereafter, case has been registered against applicant and co-accused persons.
Learned counsel for the the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. The matter is of civil nature and no case is made out under criminal law. There was agreement to sale between complainant and applicant executed on 05.05.2015 regarding Khasra No.3293/1/1/1/1 and Khasra no.3299. While said land was part of ancestral property, for which a civil suit no.7A/2007 (Dileep Singh Yadav Vs. Govind Singh Yadav & others) was filed for partition, decreed on 05.02.2010 as preliminary decree. Against which, F.A. No.245/2010 ( Govind Singh Yadav Vs. Dileep Singh Yadav & others) was filed, which was decided on 27.09.2021, whereby, preliminary decree was modified. Thereafter, final decree was passed on 07.03.2024. Against which one M.P. No.1987/2024 (Govind Singh Yadav through LRs Vs. Dileep Singh Yadav) has been preferred before the Hon'ble Court. The applicant had already cancelled said agreement to sale on 02.06.2016 through legal notice and requested to collect amount given in advance. But complainant has refused to receive the same.
The complainant replied to said legal notice on 21.06.2016 but no further action had been taken by him. It is sufficient to prove that instant matter is of civil nature. But the Lower Court deliberately ignored the same. The complainant again served a legal notice on 21.03.2024 upon the applicant to comply said agreement to sale, otherwise warned to civil action before the competent Court. In this notice, complainant further contended Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 7/25/2024 3:44:05 PM 3 MCRC-27379-2024 that if land is alienated to some other person, then, criminal action under Section 420 of IPC will be taken. While, the applicant has not alienated said land to any person or execute any agreement to sale till date. But the Lower Court deliberately ignored this fact too. The applicant replied to said legal notice on 28.03.2024 through his advocate, wherein, denied all averments and demanded to supply copy of said agreement, which was never given to him. The applicant again requested to complainant to receive said amount. Thus, all these facts and circumstances are sufficient to prove the entire dispute between the parties which is purely of civil nature.
The complaint made incorrect statements in said FIR regarding one Ram Bhagat Patel that the applicant earlier entered into an agreement to sale on 16.11.2013 and 30.12.2013 regarding Khasra no.3293/1 while, the truth is that said person Ram Bhagat Patel was Advocate of the applicant in said civil proceedings regarding the case of partition before the Courts below, therefore, the applicant made signature in various blank stamp paper on his instructions to file suit, which was manipulated by the said person and misused to forge said so called agreements. For which, Civil Suit i.e. RCSA on v 23/2024 (Rambhagat Patel Vs. Dileep Singh Yadav ) is sub-judice before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Panna, wherein, the applicant relied categorically that said agreements are forged documents. Therefore, the trial Court rejected the application made under Order 39 Rule (1) & (2) CPC on 17.05.2024, which vitiates entire FIR as the complainant made deliberately. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is the sole bread winner of the family. Therefore, his dependents are Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 7/25/2024 3:44:05 PM 4 MCRC-27379-2024 suffering from financial and other crisis.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has deposited advanced amount of Rs.1,11,000/- through online in complainant's account. FIR has been registered on 10.06.2024 i.e. after nine years. With respect to above submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon M.Cr.C.No.23604 of 2024 ( Bhupendra Singh & Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh). Applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. On above grounds, it is prayed that applicant be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/objector submits that conduct of applicant shows applicant's intent to deceit/commit fraud on 16.12.2013 and 30.12.2013, applicant executed agreement to sale in favour of one Ram Bharat relating to Survey No.3293/1/1/1/1 and others survey numbers. After that, on 05.05.2015, applicant executed agreement to sale in favour of complainant with respect to part of Survey No.3293/1 and part of Survey No.3299. It is also urged that agreement to sale executed by applicant in favour of Ram Bhagat and complainant are with respect to one and the same number. It is also urged that if applicant did not execute agreement to sale in favour of Ram Bhagat, then, why applicant did not file any FIR against Ram Bhagat with respect to forgery etc. It is also urged that applicant did not file any suit for cancellation etc. of agreement to sale allegedly executed in favour of Ram Bhagat. On above grounds, learned counsel for the objector/respondent prays for dismissal of this application.
Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State prays Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 7/25/2024 3:44:05 PM 5 MCRC-27379-2024 for dismissal of this anticipatory bail .
Looking to the conduct of applicant and having regard to agreement to sales on record and survey numbers mentioned therein, including the fact that no FIR till today has been lodged by applicant against Ram Bhagat for committing forgery and preparing fake agreement to sale deed dated 16.12.2013 and 30.12.2013, in this Court's considered opinion, it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against applicant. In the instant case, in view of overall evidence on record, prima-facie , it also cannot be said that nature of dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. Hence, principle laid down in Bhupendra Singh (Supra) does not help applicant in any way and he is not entitiled to be released on anticipatory bail.
Hence, application filed by applicant Dileep Singh Yadav under Section 438 is hereby dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE vai Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 7/25/2024 3:44:05 PM