Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Bhai vs State Of M.P. on 12 December, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291
1 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 12th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29393 of 2024
ARVIND BHAI AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Pramod C. Nair - Advocate for applicants.
Shri Kratik Mandloi - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 /
State.
Shri Devaasheesh Dubey - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
.............................................................................................................................
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17106 of 2019
SHIVNARAYAN SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Devaasheesh Dubey - Advocate for applicants.
Shri Kratik Mandloi - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 /
State.
Shri Pramod C. Nair - Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
.............................................................................................................................
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 20-12-2024
14:37:30
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291
2 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019
ORDER
Having regard to the similitude of controversy involved in both these petitions, these are being disposed off by this common order. Since impugned FIR registered at Crime No.158/2017 at Police Station Central Kotwali, Indore (M.P.) for offences under Section 420, 406, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'IPC') has been registered prior in date and time therefore in sequence M.Cr.C. No.17106/2019 arising out of the aforesaid FIR will be taken up and dealt with first.
02. In M.Cr.C. No.17106/2019, applicant Shiv Narayan Sharma and his son Rakesh Sharma are accused in the impugned FIR registered at Crime No.158/2017 at Police Station Central Kotwali, Indore for the offences under Section 420, 406, 120-B and 34 of the IPC lodged at the complaint of Arvind Bhai Patel and in M.Cr.C.No.29393/2024, applicants Arvind Bhai Patel, Navneet Patel and others are accused in Crime No.0052/2023 registered at Police Station Mahatma Gandhi Road, Indore Urban for offences under Section 406, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of the IPC lodged at the complaint of Shiv Narayan Sharma.
03. Petition in M.Cr.C.No.17106/2019 (Shiv Narayan Sharma and Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR dated 31/07/2017 registered at Crime No.158/2017 at Police Station Central Kotwali, Indore (M.P.) for Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 3 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 offences under Section 420, 406, 120-B and 34 of the IPC in furtherance of the order dated 17/01/2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
04. Another petition in M.Cr.C.No.29393/2024 (Arvind Bhai and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred for quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No.0052/2023 dated 09/02/2023 registered at Police Station Mahatma Gandhi Road, Indore Urban for offences under Section 406, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of IPC as well as order dated 07/01/2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore on an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant / respondent Shiv Narayan Sharma (now deceased), whereby direction to the Police Station Mahatma Gandhi Road, Indore has been given for registration of FIR and filing of final report after completion of investigation.
05. In nutshell, the facts as mentioned in the petitions necessary for disposal are that applicant No.1 - Arvind Bhai (complainant of FIR No.158/2017 registered against the Shiv Narayan Sharma and his son Rakesh Sharma) was having cordial family relationship with the complainant. On 11/10/2007, lands bearing survey No.271/1/7 area 0.2 hectare, survey Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 4 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 No.271/1/8 area 0.205 hectare, survey No.271/4/ area 0.020 hectare, survey No.271/1/4/5 area 0.012 hectare, survey No.271/1/6 area 0.052 hectare, survey No.271/1/3 area 0.110 hectare, survey No. 274/1/2/2 area 0.041 hectare, survey No.278/1/13 area 0.202 hectare and survey No.271/1/4/3 area 0.100 hectare total area 0.0978 hectares situated at Village Bicholi Mardana, Indore were purchased by complainant Shiv Narayan through registered sale deed No.1- A/1209.
06. On 11/04/2008, plot Nos.99 and 100 admeasuring area 522.90 square meters situated at Scheme No.114, Part-II, Indore were purchased by Rakesh Sharma son of complainant. In the year 2010, Navneet Patel - applicant No.2 availed a loan from Union Bank of India for which complainant acted as a guarantor and offered his property situated at Bicholi Mardana, Indore as collateral security and the same was mortgaged. Over the years, there were multiple financial transactions between two families with money being lent and repaid through banking channels. Loan from Union Bank of India was repaid by Navneet Patel in the year 2015, however, when the complainant approached the Bank to retrieve the property documents, he was informed that Navneet Patel had filed an objection stating that documents should not be released without the consent of all the parties. Till date the original documents remain with the Bank.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 5 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019
07. On 04/08/2012, an agreement for purchase of properties mentioned hereinabove was executed between applicant No.1 - Arvind Bhai and Shiv Narayan Sharma (now deceased, complainant) and Rs.10,00,000/- as token consideration amount was given by way of cheque number 381302 issued by Navneet Patel S/o Arvind Bhai to complainant Shiv Narayan Sharma and the cheque was cleared in complainant's account maintained at Bank of Maharashtra, Palasia Branch, Indore on 06/08/2012. Possession of all the properties was handed over to the applicant No.1. In March, 2016, on the pretext of some income tax scrutiny, original agreement dated 04/08/2012, which was in custody of applicant No.1 demanded by deceased complainant Shiv Narayan Sharma and sent his son Rakesh Sharma to collect the aforesaid agreement / document from applicant No.1 and Rakesh Sharma took that agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012 away.
08. On 05/10/2016, when the original document was not returned, even after repeated demands, applicant No.1 - Arvind Bhai was constrained to get legal notice (Annex.-P/6 in M.Cr.C.No.17106/2019) issued to Shiv Narayan Sharma. On 18/10/2016, reply to the notice (Annex.-P/7) was given, wherein even the acquaintance with applicant No.1 - Arvind Bhai and family was denied along with execution of the aforesaid agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012. Complaints were given to Police Station Central Kotwali based on Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 6 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 the aforesaid allegations and preliminary investigations were conducted. In the year 2016-17, the complainant Shiv Narayan Sharma and his son Rakesh Sharma get to know about the complaints containing allegations of surreptitiously obtaining of the agreement to sale from the custody of applicant No.1 in M.Cr.C.No.29393/2024.
09. On 31/07/2017, FIR against the complainant Shiv Narayan Sharma and his son was registered at Crime No.158/2017 at Police Station Central Kotwali under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. On 16/10/2017, Rakesh Sharma son of deceased complainant Shiv Narayan Sharma before the concerned police Station Central Kotwali, Indore in his statement (Annex.-P/9) and his father Shiv Narayan Sharma in his statement dated 08/01/2018 denied execution of agreement dated 04/08/2012 but did not raise any objection or file any complaint regarding the disputed agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012 before any competent authority or Court, as they were knowing that the aforesaid agreement has actually been executed and the original agreement has surreptitiously been taken away from Arvind Bhai, is with them.
10. On 11/12/2017, complainant Shiv Narayan submitted a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. bearing M.Cr.C.No.8466/2017 for quashing the FIR dated 31/07/2017, which was dismissed as withdrawn. On 19/12/2018, Civil Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 7 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 Suit RCSA No.1326/2018 was filed by the applicant No.1 - Arvind Bhai and on 14/01/2019, anticipatory bail in the above mentioned case Crime No.158/2017 of Police Station Central Kotwali, Indore was granted to Shiv Narayan vide M.Cr.C.No.52977/2018 on manipulated facts.
11. On 11/02/2019, relief of temporary injunction was granted in favour of applicant No.1 and bail application of complainant's son Rakesh was rejected vide order dated 13/02/2019 in M.Cr.C.No.2889/2019 when correct factual matrix was placed before the Court and thereafter, on 24/06/2019 a private complaint was lodged by deceased complainant Shiv Narayan Sharma against applicants Arvind Bhai and three others. On 28/12/2022, for preponing date of hearing an early hearing application was filed in the private complaint to hear the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and on the said day the date already fixed for i.e. 19/01/2023 was preponed to 07/01/2023. Thereafter, on 07/01/2023 application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was allowed and direction was given to Police Station M. G. Road to register the FIR against the present applicants. In compliance thereto, on 09/02/2023 impugned FIR at Crime No.52/2023 was registered at police station M.G. Road for the offences as mentioned herein above. Hence, these petitions for quashment of FIRs and subsequent proceeding thereto have been filed.
12. Learned counsel for the applicants in M.Cr.C.No.29393/2024 submits Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 8 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 that impugned FIR has been registered as counter blast to the FIR registered at Crime No.158/2017 against the complainant Shiv Narayan Sharma and his son Rakes Sharma, at Police Station Central Kotwali, Indore for offence under Section 420, 406, 120-B and 34 of IPC by delay of more than two years, even after getting knowledge of the agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012. Even after the complainant being aware of the alleged forging of agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012, in the year 2016, their failure to take any legal action until 2019 reveals their mala fide intent in filing of FIR against the applicants in M.Cr.C. No.29393/2024, which is counter blast to the FIR filed by the applicant Arvind Bhai against the complainant Shiv Narayan Sharma and his son Rakesh Sharma. Civil case has been given colour of criminality with false facts. Civil Suit RCSA No.1326/2018 filed by applicant No.1 - Arvind Bhai against the complainant Shiv Narayan Sharma and others is pending. Case against applicant Arvind Bhai and others is of no evidence. Even if facts narrated in the FIR are taken as true on their face value, even then no case is made out against the applicants. Anticipatory bail was obtained by the complainant Shiv Narayan Sharma by manipulating the facts and when this astuteness was pointed out by counsel for the applicants opposing the bail of his son Rakesh Sharma, accused in the FIR No.158/2017, the same was rejected.
13. To bolster his submission, learned counsel for applicants Arvind Bhai Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 9 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 etc. placed reliance on para 6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 the judgment dated 01/03/2021 by the Apex Court in the case of Criminal Appeal No.142 of 2021(Kapil Agarwal and Others Vs. Sanjay Sharma and Others); para 30 to 33, 45 and 46 of the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shrichand Bhau & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (passed in M.Cr.C.No.3315 of 2023 dated 04/07/2023); para 11 of judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in LAWS (SC)-2023-12-16; para 8 of judgment by Apex Court in the case of Vesa Holdings P. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.2342-2344 of 2011, dated 17/03/2015); G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs. State of U. P. and Ors. (passed in Appeal (Crl.) No.91 of 2000 dated, 28/01/2000); and para 19 in the case of Harilal Etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) (passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.2216-2217 of 2011 on 05/09/2023).
14. On these premises and contentions, learned counsel urged the court for setting aside the impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings against the applicants by allowing the petition M.Cr.C.No.29393/2024 preferred by them and to dismiss the petition M.Cr.C.No.17106/2019 being devoid of merit coupled with the fact that the original agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012, which was taken away by the Rakesh S/o Shiv Narayan Sharma is yet to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 10 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 recovered from him in the criminal case registered against him and his father at the behest of applicant Arvind Bhai.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents / complainant Rakesh Sharma, taking exception to the proposition and contentions advanced on behalf of the applicants submits that there is ample evidence to connect the applicants from the alleged offences as mentioned in the impugned FIR. After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicants. Alleged agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012 has been prepared by forging signatures of Shiv Narayan Sharma, the complainant. This agreement has been forged only on stamp of Rs.50/- for grabbing valuable property of crores of Shiv Narayan Sharma and Rakesh Sharma, which is not admissible in evidence, it is also not valuable security coupled with the fact that one property of Rakesh Sharma S/o Shiv Narayan Sharma has been involved in the agreement, which makes agreement palpably false and forged. Money paid by applicant No.2 in the account of Smt. Saraswati Sharma W/o Shiv Narayan Sharma is repayment of loan amount, which was taken by the applicants and it is not consideration amount for agreement to sale. The story of taking away of the original agreement to sale by the complainant from applicant Arvind Bhai is concocted one just to grab valuable property of the complainant / respondents.
16. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant Shiv Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 11 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 Narayan Sharma has placed reliance on para 102(6) and (7) of the judgment by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; para 26 to 37 of P. Sreekumar Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2018) 4 SCC 579; para 22 to 26 of Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash and Others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292; para 24 of Surender Kaushik and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 148; and T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for the respondent/complainants prays for dismissal of the M.Cr.C.No.29393/2024 as devoid of merit and any substance and for allowing the petition preferred by them as M.Cr.C.No.17106/2019.
17. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer of the petitioners in both the petitions alleging that sufficient material has been collected to connect the applicants from the commission of crime as mentioned in the FIRs. Defence of applicants cannot be considered while considering these petitions. On these submissions, he urges the Court for dismissal of both of these petitions.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with the aid of case diaries of both the cases.
19. Before adverting to the facts of the petitions, prevailing legal position Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 12 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 as expounded by the Apex Court in catena of judgments needs to be reiterated in the light of which the facts of the petitions are to be scrutinized to arrive at a conclusion, whether invoking of inherent powers under the provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is permissible in the instant petitions.
20. The parameters for exercising inherent powers vested by Section 561A of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (corresponding of Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973) has been laid down by the Apex Court inn the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, which are reproduced as under:
"(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding e.g. want of sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."
21. In the case of Bhajanlal (Supra) in para 102 guidelines have been issued for invoking the inherent powers, which are reproduced as under:-
"In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 13 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formuale and to given an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. Do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 14 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
22. The Apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184 has held as under:
"9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention to the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role prayed by each and every accused in committing of that offence."
23. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, Hon'ble the apex Court ruminating all the earlier authorities with regard to use of inherent powers provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has also summarized the legal position with regard to the use of inherent powers as provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
24. In the case of Supriya Jain Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [SLP No.3662/2023, dated 04/07/2021], it has been held by the Apex Court that while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 15 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 therewith by the prosecution. The Court should apply the test as to whether uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can even reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
25. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of Shiv Narayan Sharma and Rakesh Sharma that alleged agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012, which is bone of contention among Arvind Bhai Patel, Shiv Narayan Sharma and Rakesh Sharma, has been executed only on the stamp of Rs.50/-, whereby property of crores of rupees was allegedly intended to be sold. It has also been alleged that one of the property involved in the agreement to sale is in the name of Rakesh Sharma, which could not have been agreed to sell by Shiv Narayan Sharma as Rakesh Sharma was not party to the agreement to sale. On this, learned counsel for the Shiv Narayan Sharma and Rakesh Sharma has tried to build a case of forging of the aforesaid agreement to sale by Arvind Bhai Patel and others.
26. If the aforesaid contentions are scrutinized in the light of the prevailing provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it would be crystal clear that if any document has been executed on insufficient amount of stamp papers, as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 16 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 the same can be legalized by way of impounding by paying deficit stamp duty and penalty ordered by the competent authority and thereafter, it can be admitted in evidence as legal document. Similarly, agreement to sale for specific performance of contract is not required to be registered and as per Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act i.e. Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. If Shiv Narayan Sharma father of Rakesh Sharma has involved one of the property in the name of his son, in disputed agreement to sale, for this applicant Arvind Bhai Patel and Navneet Patel or any of the applicants in M.Cr.C.No.29393/2024 cannot be held responsible as it was within specific knowledge of Shiv Narayan Sharma that one of the properties he is intending to sell by the disputed agreement to sale is in the name of his son Rakesh Sharma but it cannot be a ground to presume that this agreement to sale is forged one just because of the folly or mischief of Shiv Narayan Sharma.
27. One more contention has been raised on behalf of Shiv Narayan Sharma and Rakesh Sharma that the disputed agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012 does not fall within the purview of valuable security. This Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 17 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 contention is also not sustainable in the light of definition of valuable security as provided under Section 30 of the IPC, which is reproduced as under:
"30. "Valuable security".--The words "valuable security"
denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right."
From bare perusal of the aforesaid definition of valuable security makes it amply clear that agreement to sale falls within the category of valuable security as through this document legal right can be created by using it in a suit for specific performance of contract. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the Shiv Narayan Sharma and Rakesh Sharma in support of his petition and in opposing the petition filed by the opponent Arvind Bhai Patel and others, as mentioned hereinabove cannot be sustained and are hereby rejected. In the light of the aforesaid, arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents for making out a case of agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012 being forged one cannot be sustained.
28. Learned counsel for the Shiv Narayan Sharma and Rakesh Sharma placing reliance on para 26 to 35 of the judgment by Apex Court in the case of P. Sreekumar (Supra); para 22 to 26 of Upkar Singh (Supra); and T.T. Antony (Supra) submits that second FIR is permissible on the facts of the case. FIR against Arvind Bhai Patel and three others has been got registered Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 18 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 immediately after coming into knowledge of disputed agreement to sale when on marking presence on 04/01/2019 in civil suit RCSA No.1326/2018 filed by Arvind Bhai against Shiv Narayan Sharma defendant, for the first time saw the copy of disputed agreement dated 04/08/2012. No delay is there in lodging FIR. Relevant paras of judgment in P. Sreekumar (Supra) relied upon by the counsel for Shiv Narayan Sharma are extracted as under:
"26. In our view, the High Court had committed jurisdictional error in quashing the subsequent FIR/charge-sheet, which was filed at the instance of the appellant against respondent No.3 without adverting to the law on the subject.
27. In our opinion, the law on the subject which governs the controversy involved in the appeal is no more res integra and settled by the decision of this Court (three-Judge Bench) in the case reported in Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 292 and also by the subsequent decisions.
28. Their Lordships after examining all the previous case laws on the subject laid down the following proposition of law in the following words speaking through Justice N. Santosh Hegde:
"23. Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T. Antony case1 is to be accepted as holding that a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited under the Code then, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear from the hypothetical example given hereinbelow i.e. if in regard to a crime committed by the real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question, consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring the real accused to book. This cannot be the purport of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291
19 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 Code.
24. We have already noticed that in T.T. Antony case1 this Court did not consider the legal right of an aggrieved person to file counterclaim, on the contrary from the observations found in the said judgment it clearly indicates that filing a counter-complaint is permissible.
25. In the instant case, it is seen in regard to the incident which took place on 20-5-1995, the appellant and the first respondent herein have lodged separate complaints giving different versions but while the complaint of the respondent was registered by the police concerned, the complaint of the appellant was not so registered, hence on his prayer the learned Magistrate was justified in directing the police concerned to register a case and investigate the same and report back. In our opinion, both the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the same is hit by Section 161 or 162 of the Code which, in our considered opinion, has absolutely no bearing on the question involved. Section 161 or 162 of the Code does not refer to registration of a case, it only speaks of a statement to be recorded by the police in the course of the investigation and its evidentiary value."
29. The aforesaid principle was reiterated by this Court (Two Judge Bench) in Surender Kaushik & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 148 in the following words:
"24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter-FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 20 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh, the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible."
30. Keeping the aforesaid principle of law in mind when we examine the facts of the case at hand, we find that the second FIR filed by the appellant against respondent No.3 though related to the same incident for which the first FIR was filed by respondent No.2 against the appellant, respondent No.3 and three Bank officials, yet the second FIR being in the nature of a counter- complaint against respondent No.3 was legally maintainable and could be entertained for being tried on its merits.
31. In other words, there is no prohibition in law to file the second FIR and once it is filed, such FIR is capable of being taken note of and tried on merits in accordance with law.
32. It is for the reasons that firstly, the second FIR was not filed by the same person, who had filed the first FIR. Had it been so, then the situation would have been somewhat different. Such was not the case here; Second, it was filed by the appellant as a counter-complaint against respondent No.3; Third, the first FIR was against five persons based on one set of allegations whereas the second FIR was based on the allegations different from the allegations made in the first FIR; and Lastly, the High Court while quashing the second FIR/charge-sheet did not examine the issue arising in the case in the light of law laid down by this Court in two aforementioned decisions of this Court in the cases of Upkar Singh (supra) and Surender Kaushik (supra) and simply referred three decisions of this Court mentioned above wherein this Court has laid down general principle of law relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.
33. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the four reasons mentioned above, we are unable to agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of the High Court and are, therefore, inclined to set aside the impugned order. Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 21 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019
34. The Magistrate will now proceed to try and decide the case on merits and while doing so, he will be free to examine all the issues arising in the case from all the angles in the light of the evidence that will be adduced by the parties.
35. If the Magistrate finds that the material brought on record against any person(s) including the appellant herein in the evidence indicating the involvement of any such person(s) in commission of the alleged offences, he will be free to proceed against any such person(s) in accordance with law and bring the proceedings to its logical end uninfluenced by any of our observations."
29. Similarly, para 24 of the judgment by the Apex court in the case of Surender Kaushik (Supra) relied upon by counsel for the Shiv Narayan Sharma and Rakesh Sharma is also extracted for ready reference:
"24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh (supra), the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible."
30. Learned counsel for the Arvind Bhai Patel and others has vehemently opposed the contentions on the ground that subsequent FIR lodged by Shiv Narayan Sharma is sheer abuse of process of law and has been lodged by Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 22 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 inordinate delay of more than two years even after coming into their knowledge about the disputed agreement to sale which according to them is forged one. They have gained knowledge about the aforesaid agreement to sale by notice dated 05/10/2016 (Annex.-P/6) given by Arvind Bhai Patel and which was replied to on 18/10/2016 (Annex.-P/7). No complaint was lodged in between the receipt of aforesaid notice and lodging of the impugned FIR No.52/2023 dated 09/02/2023, which in itself reveals that when Rakesh Sharma failed to get anticipatory bail order by M.Cr.C.No.2889/2019 (Rakesh Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) on 13/02/2019 on manipulated facts as explanation whereof was given by the counsel appearing on behalf of objector Arvind Bhai Patel, they after hatching conspiracy against the Arvind Bhai Patel and Others as counter blast filed complaint before the Court and by manipulation get the order for registration of FIR No. No.52/2023 dated 09/02/2023 against Arvind Bhai Patel and three others.
31. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for applicants in M.Cr.C.No.29393/2024 has placed reliance on para 30 of the order of co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shrichand Bhau (Supra) is extracted as under:
"30. In the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Apex Court not only deprecated such practice but also suggested steps which can be taken by the Courts to curb unnecessary prosecutions and Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 23 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 harassment of parties especially to exercise power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where Courts discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Relevant paras are reproduced as under:
"13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP [2000 (2) SCC 636], this Court observed :
"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 24 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may."
31. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others, (2022) 7 SCC 124 reiterated the same principle and deprecated conversion of civil dispute into criminal liability. Instant matter is a case where civil liability (if any) is tried to be converted into criminal prosecution.
32. There is growing tendency amongst the people to convert Commercial/ Transactional/ Property related/ Partnership/ Arbitration/ Family/ Matrimonial/ Medical Negligence related disputes into criminal prosecution so that accused may succumb to the wrath of procedure involved in the criminal cases and settle the matter which otherwise is the domain of Civil Courts. When the case could have been settled through Arbitration or Civil proceedings or through Mediation but instead of going for that, vested interest/complainant directly approach the Police Stations for filing complaints and those complaints are readily accepted by the police despite the fact that exceptions have been carved out by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 in which, in certain cases preliminary enquiry were contemplated/directed. In para 120.6 of the judgment, the Apex Court discussed as under:
"120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 25 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry."
33. All these tricks and tactics place the accused in a vulnerable position because once he is involved in such type of cases then immediate reaction is freezing of his peace of mind and vaporization of financial resources, inconvenience to his employment/business and loss of social image. These are the instant casualties and when after some years of trial and tribulation if he is acquitted by trial Court, even then Procedural Justice is not available to him. He lost his valuable years engaged in defending himself on such flimsy pretext. Procedure of Justice if prolonged, then it has the trappings of harassment." In the aforesaid case, the prosecution was quashed.
32. In the light of the aforesaid judgments there is no quarrel about the law that as propounded by the Apex Court in case of P. Sreekumar (Supra) and Surender Kaushik (Supra) that if rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event lodgment of two FIRs is permissible but it is still to be scrutinized by the Court whether the second FIR is not maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudges as held by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (Supra).
33. In the instant case, first FIR dated 17/01/2017 was got registered against Shiv Narayan Sharma and his son Rakesh Sharma for surreptitiously Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 26 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 taking away the agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012 and after that civil suit has also been filed against Shiv Narayan Sharma and others by Arvind Bhai Patel, which is also pending. FIR filed by Shiv Narayan Sharma against applicant Arvind Bhai Patel and others by delay of more than two years after coming into the knowledge of the disputed agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012, is clearly filed maliciously as a counter blast, is apparent from the facts of the case as narrated herein above which is abuse of process of law.
34. It is also worth mention here that in support of execution of agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012 in favour of applicant Arvind Bhai Patel, report of Handwriting Expert has also been obtained and filed. Whether this agreement to sale is forged one can only be decided in the civil suit by the competent Court after taking the evidence of both the parties in civil suit which is already pending before the civil Court. The agreement to sale dated 04/08/2012 cannot be said to be forged one on mere speculation of the Shiv Narayan Sharma and Rakesh Sharma. Even if they have obtained a Handwriting Expert's report in their favour, it is still to be proved by way of adducing evidence before the Court. In case learned civil Court on completion of trial comes to the conclusion in the judgment that the document is forged one Court can suo moto take cognizance of the fact and initiate suitable action in accordance with law. But at this stage before any adjudication, registration of Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 27 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 FIR against the Arvind Bhai Patel and others is sheer abuse of process of law. It appears that it is lodged just to put pressure on the applicant Arvind Bhai Patel and others to settle the score based on concocted and after thought version when Rakesh Sharma failed to secure anticipatory bail. It is quite clear from the FIR lodged by Arvind Bhai Patel against Shiv Narayan Sharma and his son that original copy of agreement to sale executed on 04/08/2012 has been taken away on the pretext of it to be submitted before Income Tax Authority for scrutiny. Original agreement to sale is yet to be recovered from Rakesh Sharma who has been shown absconding in the charge sheet filed in Court in case of RCT No.21423 dated 23/04/2019 as mentioned in case diary of Crime No.158/2017.
35. Here, even at the cost of repetition it is to be noted that explanation for filing of delayed FIR against the applicants Arvind Bhai Patel and others has been found false in the obtaining facts of the case which again supports the contention raised on behalf of applicant Arvind Bhai Patel and others that this FIR is filed as counter blast for settling the score.
36. It has become tendency of parties to give colour of criminality to civil cases just to settle the score as held in para 30 to 33 in the case of Shrichand Bhau (Supra). Filing of FIR No.52/2023 against applicant Arvind Bhai and others is glaring example of it.
37. Observation by the Apex Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri (Supra) Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 28 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 is also relevant on the aforesaid point, which is extracted as under:
"Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, Jurisdiction- under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Others, AIR (1977) SC 1489 = [1977] 3 SCR 113, this Court said that in the exercise of the wholesome power under Section 482 of the Code High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed."
The aforesaid judgment squarely cover the facts of the petition M.Cr.C.No.29393/2024, wherein during pendency of the civil suit and previous FIR lodged by the applicant, as a counter blast, Shiv Narayan Sharma has got lodged the FIR against the applicant on the manipulated facts.
38. In the case of Kapil Agarwal (Supra) also the Apex Court has held that where it is found that subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and / or the same has been to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Relevant paras 6.1, 6.2 and 7 the judgment are extracted below:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 29 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 "6. However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
6.1 As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.
6.2 As held by this Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Section 482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Same are the powers with the High Court, when it exercises the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. Applying the law laid down by this Court, referred to hereinabove, to the facts of the case on hand, subsequent FIR filed by the respondent - original complainant can be said to be an abuse of process of law and the same to be bringing pressure on the accused, which can be demonstrated from the following facts:
i) cheque no. 038611 was presented for encashment and the same came to be dishonoured by the banker of the complainant due to "insufficient funds";
ii) that the company - VBL served statutory legal notices upon the complainant under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act;
iii) that thereafter complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by the company against the respondent-original complainant on 7.11.2014;Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 30 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019
iv) that thereafter, after a period of three months, respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR against the appellants herein, i.e., in the month of February, 2015;
v) the learned Magistrate declined to order registration of FIR, but decided to inquire into the matter by treating the same as complaint case and granted respondent no.1 - original complainant an opportunity of recording solemn affirmation under Section 200 Cr.P.C. (order dated 23.03.2015). Order dated 23.03.2015 came to be set aside by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 8.7.2015 and the matter was remanded to the learned Magistrate with directions to pass a speaking order. The same is pending before the learned Magistrate;
vi) that thereafter after a period of two years, R1 lodged the impugned FIR against the appellants with police station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad with the similar contents and allegations which were levelled in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the FIR, the date of occurrence of the offence has been shown as 26.07.2017;
vii) it appears that R1 is not proceeding further with his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is pending before the learned Magistrate since last five years;
viii) in the FIR, neither there is any reference to the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which is pending before the learned Magistrate, nor there is a reference of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Under the circumstances, the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and can be said to be filed with a view to harass the appellants."
39. In light of the discussion as aforesaid, the impugned FIR in petition i.e. M.Cr.C. No.29393/2024 comes in the category (7) as provided in para 102 of judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal (Supra), wherein it has been held that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36291 31 MCRC-29393-2024 & 17106-2019 with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The same can be quashed by invoking inherent powers as provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
40. In view of the aforesaid, petition i.e. M.Cr.C. No.29393/2024 is allowed and FIR bearing Crime No.0052/2023 dated 09/02/2023 registered by Police Station Mahatma Gandhi Road, Indore Urban for offences under Section 406, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of the IPC as well as order dated 07/01/2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
41. Petition in M.Cr.C.No.17106/2019, which has been filed by Shiv Narayan Sharma and his son Rakesh Sharma is having no force as is apparent from the discussion mentioned herein above. The allegations made in the FIR are found duly supported by oral as well as documentary evidence, therefore, this petition is bereft of merits, fails and is hereby dismissed. Prosecution against the applicant(s) will continue.
42. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of connected petition also.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE Tej Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 20-12-2024 14:37:30