Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Bhati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19054
1 CRR-1476-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1476 of 2024
KAMAL BHATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Solanki - learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
HEARD ON : 08.07.2025
POSTED ON : 23.07.2025
..........................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2023 in RCT No.524/2023 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain whereby charges under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 292(c) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 has been framed.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that an offence under Section 420 of the IPC was registered at Police Station Jeevajiganj, Ujjain on the complaint of Moolchand S/o Late Pradhanmal Govindani to whom a parcel of land admeasuring 1200 sq.ft. of Survey No.650/3 situated at village Bheetri Chak, Tehsil - Ghatitya, District Ujjain was sold through the registered sale deed.
3. After investigation, a final report was prepared under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC and Section 292(c) of the M.P. Municipal Signature Not Verified Signed by: varsha singh Signing time: 7/23/2025 7:31:51 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19054 2 CRR-1476-2024 Corporation Act, 1956 on the ground that the land sold to the complainant as a plot for house construction was reserved for Sinhastha and cannot be sold as a plot and taking the advantage of old age and semi literacy of the complainant, the land was sold as a plot and developed illegal colony.
4. The Trial Court found the offence falling within the provisions of Section 420 of the IPC and Section 292(c) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and remanded the matter to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain and JMFC, Ujjain registered the case as RCT No.524/2023 and framed the charges.
5. Challenging the framing of charges, this revision petition is preferred on the ground that the accused has neither prepared the document which has been alleged by the prosecution nor did he deceive the complainant by any means. The present case arises out of the civil/contractual transaction which has been given the colour of criminal case at the instance of the complainant. The complainant since inception was well aware of the fact that the parcel of land purchased by him is an agricultural land as he had perused all the revenue records before purchasing. The sale deed was drafted and prepared by him where he maliciously mentioned wrong nature of land to prejudice petitioner. The notification relied on by the complainant came in the year 2014 and thus, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any future event/contingency for the sale deed executed by him in the past of which he was not aware. At the relevant time there was no restriction on the sale of land in question falling in the Sinhastha Kshetra. The requisite mens rea and actus reus are not found on the part of the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: varsha singh Signing time: 7/23/2025 7:31:51 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19054 3 CRR-1476-2024 petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The material collected during investigation reveals that the present petitioner purchased 0.0890 Hectares of Survey No.650/3 area 0.178 Hectares vide registered sale deed on 06.11.2012 from Bhagwanti Bai and the land was mentioned as agricultural land. Thereafter, the present petitioner sold 1200 Sq.ft. plot of that land representing the land as residential area for residential purposes and freehold on 03.01.2013. Map appended with the sale deed also describes the land as plot and in the east side also other plots were mentioned. The material collected during investigation discloses that no permission for colony development has been granted to the present petitioner.
7. The above material raises "grave suspicion" against the petitioner justifying the framing of charges. The contention raised by the present petitioner are the matter of defense and it cannot be examined at the state of framing of charges. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order, hence, the Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 stands dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified Signed by: varsha singh Signing time: 7/23/2025 7:31:51 PM