Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Kumar Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2017
M.Cr.C. No. 374 OF 2017 27.01.2017
Shri Aviral Vikas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') praying for quashment of First Information Report concerning Crime No.269/16 registered at Police Station - Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam, with regard to offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 and 120-B of IPC.
It is found that after investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against petitioner Dinesh Kumar Mathur and four other persons namely, Manoharlal, Ashok, Gopal and Krishna Singh and S.T.No.5017/16 is presently pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam in this regard.
The First Information Report was registered on the basis of a written complaint made by one Manilal that he through one broker-Ashok Kumar Dahiya had purchased Plot No.F-201, situated at Dindayal Nagar from one Nirmala w/o Ramkishan Sukhdev. In this regard, instead of sale-deed, a power of attorney was executed by Nirmala after receiving a consideration of Rs.5,50,000/-. The complainant on the basis of this power of attorney, later on, executed a sale-deed in favour of one Nandkishore S/o Babulal. Allegedly, when complainant -Manilal through newspaper reports came to know that forged sale-deeds have been executed with regard to certain plots belonging to Housing Board; he, tried to contact Nirmala Bai, however, as she could not be contacted, therefore, a complaint was made that a forged power of attorney was executed by Nirmala Bai in her favour.
The police investigated the matter in which it was revealed that initially the aforesaid plot was allotted by Housing Board on 01/12/1989 in favour of one Ramkishan Sukhdev - the husband of Nirmala Bai. All dues with regard to the aforesaid plot were paid by Ramkishan Sukhdev. On 17/12/14, an application purporting to be in the name of Nirmala Bai was made to the Estate Manager of the Housing Board, praying for mutation of entries with regard to aforesaid plot on the ground that Ramkishan Sukhdev has expired. After necessary office processing, the matter was finally placed by office with a re- commendatory note before petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Mathur, who at the relevant point of time was Executive Engineer of Housing Board, Ratlam. The same was allowed by him resulting in modification of entries in favour of Nirmala Bai. Allegedly, the woman, who had submitted application for mutation was not real Nirmala Bai rather she impersonated herself as Nirmala Bai and after mutation, executed forged power of attorney in favour of the complainant and thus cheated him.
The case of the prosecution is that broker Ashok Kumar Dahiya conspired with some lady and officials and employees of Housing Board, Ratlam including the petitioner to carry out mutation of entries with regard to the plot belonging to Ramkishan Sukhdev and that the application for mutation which was submitted by some lady, who impersonated herself as Nirmala Bai.
The role attributed to the present petitioner is that he was part of the conspiracy and that he, while permitting mutation of the record in the Housing Board, did not properly verify that the applicant lady was real Nirmala Bai.
The charge-sheet has been filed with regard to the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 and 120-B of IPC.
To constitute an offence under Section 419 and 420 of IPC, it is required to establish that 'cheating' within the meaning of Section 415 of IPC was made. In the entire charge-sheet, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he in the capacity of Executive Engineer of the Housing Board, while discharging his duties with regard to mutation had deceived any person fraudulently or dishonestly and induced such person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. Nor it is the case of the prosecution that he intentionally induced a person to do or omit to do anything, if not so deceived. In view of the aforesaid, prima-facie charges with regard to offence under Sections 419 & 420 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner even if all the material available in the charge-sheet is accepted at its face value.
To constitute an offence under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, it must be established that a false document was prepared within the meaning of Section 464 of IPC, which runs as under :-
464. Making a false document. -- [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-- First --Who dishonestly or fradulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly -- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly -- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
In the instant case, the allegation is that the petitioner without properly verifying the identity of the applicant had allowed the mutation, however, such act does not fall under any of the clauses of Section 464 of IPC which deals with making of false document. Unless, it is established that a false document was made within the meaning of 464 of IPC. Offences under Section 467, 468 & 471 of IPC cannot be there. (See : Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751). Therefore, from the charge-sheet even after accepting all the allegations made therein, the offences alleged against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC are not at all made out.
Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch, Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC Page 604, has clearly held that if even after accepting all the allegations and the material with the charge-sheet, necessary ingredients to constitute alleged offence(s) are not available, then it will be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings/charge-sheet else it will result in lead to unnecessary harassment to the accused.
In view of the aforesaid, it is a fit case for quashment of FIR in Crime No.269/16 P.S.Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Mathur.
Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and First Information Report and all the consequent proceedings having arisen therefrom, are hereby quashed.
C.c.as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge sk