Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyam Singh Yadav vs Smt Munni Devi Alias Meena Verma on 23 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177
1 MCRC-7914-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7914 of 2023
SHYAM SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Khub Chand Verma, Upendra Kumar Shrivas and Deepak Kumar
Gupta - Advocates for the respondent No.2.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40503 of 2023
SHYAM SINGH YADAV
Versus
SMT MUNNI DEVI ALIAS MEENA VERMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Khub Chand Verma, Upendra Kumar Shrivas and Deepak
Kumar Gupta - Advocates for the respondent No.1.
RESEREVED ON :- 17/02/2026
DELIVERED ON :- 23/02/2026
ORDER
Since both the petitions arise out of the same set of facts and challenge NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 2 MCRC-7914-2023 proceedings emanating from Crime No.257/2022 registered at Police Station University, Gwalior, they are being decided by this common order.
In M.Cr.C. No. 7914 of 2023The petitioner had sought quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.257/2022 registered at Police Station University, Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, along with all consequential proceedings.
In M.Cr.C. No. 40503 of 2023The petitioner is seeking recall of the order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.191/2023 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court No.3, Gwalior, whereby the revision preferred against the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned JMFC, Gwalior was dismissed.
FACTS As per prosecution story, the complainant/respondent, Smt. Munni Devi @ Meena Verma, wife of Shri Khoobchand Verma, aged about 70 years, resident of Subhash Bada, Danaoli, Lashkar, Gwalior (M.P.), filed a private complaint before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, against the accused persons, namely: (1) Santosh Singh Kushwah, (2) Shyam Singh Yadav (present petitioner), (3) Satendra Singh Gurjar, (4) Bhupendra Singh Rana, (5) Vikas Sharma, (6) Pradeep Singh Chauhan, (7) Pankaj Rajput and (8) Abhay Limaye, who was working as a service provider in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ohadpur, Gwalior.
According to the complainant, she is the owner of an immovable property situated at Adarsh Mill Road, Bahodapur, District Gwalior, Ward NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 3 MCRC-7914-2023 No.1, ad-measuring approximately 154 square feet. On 17.02.2021, she entered into an agreement to sell the said property to accused No.1 Santosh Singh Kushwah for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. Out of the agreed consideration, a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- was paid as advance and the remaining amount of Rs.3,70,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be executed within four months from the date of the agreement. It was alleged that when accused No.1 failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated period, he sought extension of two months and requested that the notarized agreement be converted into a registered agreement. On 21.06.2021, the complainant accompanied accused No.1 to the office of the Sub-Registrar at Ohadpur, City Centre, Gwalior, for execution of the registered document. As her husband was elderly and unwell, he did not accompany her. The complainant states that reposing trust in accused No.1, she signed and affixed her thumb impression on the documents presented before her. She was produced before the Sub-Registrar, her photograph was taken and thereafter she was brought back to her residence. She alleges that she was not explained the contents of the document nor was she asked any specific questions by the Sub-Registrar. Subsequently, when she demanded a copy of the registered agreement, accused No.1 failed to provide the same. Upon inquiry made by her husband and nephew (who is an Advocate) from the office of the Sub- Registrar, it was revealed that instead of registering an agreement to sell, a Power of Attorney had been executed in favour of accused No.2, namely, the present petitioner Shyam Singh Yadav. It was further discovered that the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 4 MCRC-7914-2023 Power of Attorney did not relate to the property agreed to be sold, but instead mentioned a much larger parcel of land ad-measuring approximately 12,000 square feet situated near Jail Road, Bahodapur, Ward No.1, Gwalior, bearing Survey Nos.498/01, 498/03, 500 and 501. The complainant further alleged that accused No.8, Abhay Limaye, who was working as a service provider in the office of the Sub-Registrar, had booked the e-stamp slot and facilitated execution of the said Power of Attorney by using forged signatures of the complainant. Accused No.1 Santosh Singh Kushwah and accused No.3 Satendra Singh Gurjar signed the document as witnesses. Upon coming to know about the alleged fraud, the complainant attempted to cancel the said Power of Attorney and booked a slot on 12.07.2021 for execution of a deed of cancellation. However, before the cancellation could be effected, it was alleged that on 13.07.2021 at about 03:04 PM, accused No.2 Shyam Singh Yadav (present petitioner), in conspiracy with accused Nos.3 to 7, namely, Satendra Singh Gurjar, Bhupendra Singh Rana, Vikas Sharma, Pradeep Singh Chauhan and Pankaj Rajput, executed a sale deed on the strength of the aforesaid Power of Attorney. Accused No.1 Santosh Singh Kushwah acted as a witness to the said sale deed and accused No.7 Pankaj Rajput allegedly assisted in furtherance of the conspiracy. It was also alleged that certain officials of the Sub-Registrar's office, namely, Dushyant Dixit and Kailash Narayan Verma, colluded with the accused persons and facilitated the execution of the documents by misusing their official position, despite the complainant's effort to cancel the Power of Attorney. The complainant has asserted that being an elderly lady with limited literacy and NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 5 MCRC-7914-2023 with her husband being unwell, she was deceived by the accused persons, who allegedly conspired to grab her property by forging signatures and fabricating documents. The complainant submitted written complaints to Police Station University, Gwalior on 26.07.2021 and to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior on 28.07.2021, but no FIR was registered. Thereafter, she approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Vide order dated 23.11.2021, she was directed to avail appropriate remedy before the competent Magistrate. Pursuant thereto, she filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC, Gwalior. The learned JMFC, by order dated 10.05.2022, directed registration of an FIR against the accused persons. In compliance thereof, FIR bearing Crime No.257/2022 was registered at Police Station University, Gwalior, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. Aggrieved by registration of the said FIR, the present petitioner filed M.Cr.C. No.7914 of 2023 before this Court seeking quashment of the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Further, the petitioner challenged the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned JMFC by filing a criminal revision on 01.07.2022 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court No.3, Gwalior. The said revision was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2023. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the revision, the petitioner has preferred M.Cr.C. No.40503 of 2023 before this Court.
ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shyam Singh Yadav, submitted that NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 6 MCRC-7914-2023 the registration of the impugned FIR as well as the continuation of consequential proceedings against the petitioner are wholly illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of the process of law, as even if the entire prosecution story is taken at its face value, no ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC are made out against the present petitioner.
It was further submitted that the dispute arises out of a transaction relating to sale and purchase of immovable property and is essentially civil in nature. The complainant admittedly entered into an agreement to sell and thereafter appeared before the Sub-Registrar for execution of documents. The documents in question, including the Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deed, were executed before a competent statutory authority and duly registered. The Sub-Registrar acted as a quasi-judicial authority and verified the identity of the executants, obtains photographs and thumb impressions and ensured compliance with statutory formalities. In such circumstances, bald allegations of forgery and fabrication cannot override the statutory presumption attached to registered documents.
It was further submitted that the complainant suppressed material facts before the learned Magistrate while seeking registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. She pleaded that her husband was not present at the time of execution of the documents, whereas in fact her husband is a practicing advocate who regularly appears before the Family Court and was present at the Registrar Office along with his junior advocate at the time of execution. The presence of her husband is reflected in the photographs annexed with the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 7 MCRC-7914-2023 petition. This deliberate suppression and misrepresentation of facts demonstrated the mala fide intention of the complainant and vitiate the entire proceedings.
It was further submitted that prior to execution of the Power of Attorney and the sale deed, substantial consideration was paid to the complainant and her husband. The transaction was carried out after mutual understanding and consent. Even a cheque issued in the course of the transaction was subsequently honoured by payment in cash. The complainant had intentionally concealed these facts and was attempting to portray a consensual transaction as a criminal act. There was neither wrongful gain to the petitioner nor wrongful loss to the complainant in the manner alleged. On the contrary, the petitioner himself has suffered financial loss.
With respect to the offence under Section 420 IPC, it was further submitted that cheating, as defined under Section 415 IPC, requires deception of a person and dishonest or fraudulent inducement from the very inception of the transaction, leading to delivery of property or causing damage or harm. In the present case, the FIR and complaint are conspicuously silent about any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the inception. There is no specific allegation that the petitioner induced the complainant to execute the document by misrepresentation or deception. The complainant voluntarily appeared before the Sub-Registrar, appended her signatures and thumb impressions, and participated in the registration process. In absence of initial fraudulent intent, the essential ingredients of cheating are not satisfied.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 8 MCRC-7914-2023 It was also contended that the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC cannot be attracted in the facts of the present case. For constituting forgery, the ingredients of Section 463 IPC must be prima facie established, namely, making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury. In the present case, the documents were executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar in accordance with law. The signatures alleged to be forged are those of the complainant herself and there is no expert opinion or material on record to substantiate the allegation of forgery. Mere allegation that the complainant did not understand the contents of the document does not amount to forgery. No forged document has been created or used by the petitioner as genuine within the meaning of Section 471 IPC.
As regards the allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, it was submitted that there was no material to show any prior meeting of minds or agreement between the petitioner and other accused persons to commit an illegal act. The allegations are omnibus and general in nature without any specific overt act attributed to the petitioner. Criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Magistrate, while passing the order dated 10.05.2022 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., failed to apply judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The order is mechanical and does not reflect satisfaction regarding the commission of cognizable offences. No preliminary enquiry was directed despite the dispute being predominantly civil and arising out of a registered transaction. The learned revisional Court, while dismissing Criminal Revision No.191/2023 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 9 MCRC-7914-2023 vide order dated 28.07.2023, also failed to consider these aspects and affirmed the order without proper appreciation of law and facts. The impugned order is thus unjust, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
It was also submitted that the private complaint and the FIR contain contradictions and inconsistencies, clearly suggesting that the criminal proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motives to pressurize and harass the petitioner. Criminal law cannot be permitted to be used as a tool to settle civil disputes or to extort money. If every dispute arising out of contractual or property transactions is given a criminal colour, it would lead to disastrous consequences and misuse of penal provisions. Criminal liability requires specific and clear averments regarding the role of the accused and prima facie material to support such allegations. In the present case, there is no direct or independent evidence to demonstrate the involvement of the petitioner in any fraudulent or illegal act. The allegations are vague, exaggerated and based on distortion of facts by the complainant.
It was further submitted that the petitioner had apprehension of biased investigation and had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed as withdrawn. Despite representations made to higher authorities, no fair and impartial investigation has been conducted. The continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner.
In sum and substance, it was contended that the entire dispute, even if taken at its highest, arises out of a money transaction relating to sale of land and does not satisfy the ingredients of cheating, forgery or conspiracy. The NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 10 MCRC-7914-2023 FIR does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner and has been lodged with mala fide intention.
On these grounds, it was prayed that FIR bearing Crime No.257/2022 registered at Police Station University, Gwalior for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC along with all consequential proceedings be quashed, and further the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.191 of 2023 be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant vehemently opposed the petitions and submitted that the FIR as well as the consequential proceedings disclose serious cognizable offences and do not warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the complainant is a 70-year-old lady, who was induced to visit the office of the Sub-Registrar on the pretext of registration of an agreement to sell, but instead a Power of Attorney was fraudulently executed in favour of the present petitioner in respect of a much larger parcel of land than what was agreed upon. The allegations clearly disclose deception, misrepresentation and dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction. It was further submitted that the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by the complainant was not only contrary to the original agreement but also covered land ad- measuring approximately 12,000 square feet, whereas the agreement to sell pertained to a much smaller area. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner, acting in connivance with other accused persons, hurriedly executed a sale deed on the basis of the said Power of Attorney before the complainant could effectively cancel it. These facts, according to the prosecution, clearly NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 11 MCRC-7914-2023 indicate a pre-planned conspiracy to usurp the property of the complainant by abusing the registration process. It was further submitted that the plea that the documents were registered before the Sub-Registrar does not absolve the petitioner of criminal liability. Registration of a document does not validate a transaction if the document itself was procured by fraud or by forging signatures. The complainant has specifically alleged that she was not explained the contents of the document and that her signatures were misused. Whether the signatures are genuine or forged and whether she was deceived are matters requiring thorough investigation and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was also contended that the FIR contains specific allegations against the present petitioner, including his role as beneficiary of the Power of Attorney and executor of the subsequent sale deed. The offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC are clearly attracted on a plain reading of the complaint. At the stage of investigation, the Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence or test the veracity of allegations. Since the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offences, interference by this Court would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution.
On these grounds, it was prayed that both petitions are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed, leaving the petitioner to raise all his defences before the investigating agency or the trial Court at the appropriate stage.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION At the outset, it is trite that while exercising jurisdiction under Section NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 12 MCRC-7914-2023 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or to meticulously appreciate the evidence. The test to be applied is whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint and the FIR, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose commission of the offences alleged. Interference is warranted only where the allegations do not constitute any offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
In the present case, insofar as the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are concerned, this Court finds that the foundational requirement of "making a false document" within the meaning of Section 463 IPC is not prima facie established against the petitioner. The Power of Attorney and the subsequent sale deed were executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar after following the prescribed statutory procedure. The gravamen of the complaint is that the complainant was misled regarding the nature and contents of the document and the land described therein was different from what was agreed. However, such allegation, by itself, does not automatically constitute forgery unless there is prima facie material to show fabrication of signatures, impersonation, alteration of document, or creation of a false document by the accused. No such specific material is brought to the notice of this Court at this stage.
The dispute, to the extent it relates to the validity, scope or authority of the Power of Attorney, appears to revolve around the complainant's assertion that the document was obtained by misrepresentation. Even if such allegation is assumed to be correct for the sake of argument, it would primarily give rise NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 13 MCRC-7914-2023 to questions of consent, misrepresentation or civil invalidity of the transaction. In absence of prima facie evidence demonstrating that the petitioner created or used a forged document as genuine, continuation of prosecution for offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC would not be justified. Therefore, allowing criminal proceedings to continue for these offences would amount to unnecessary harassment and abuse of process.
However, the matter stands on a different footing with regard to offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The complaint contains specific assertions that the complainant was induced to attend the Sub-Registrar's office under the pretext of registration of an agreement to sell, but instead a Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the petitioner covering a substantially larger parcel of land, and immediately thereafter a sale deed was executed in favour of third parties before the complainant could cancel the Power of Attorney. These allegations, if taken at their face value, prima facie suggest deception and possible concerted action among the accused persons. Whether such allegations are ultimately substantiated by evidence is a matter to be determined after investigation and, if necessary, at trial.
This Court is mindful of the settled principle that where the allegations disclose a mixture of civil and criminal liability, the mere availability of civil remedy is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings if the ingredients of a cognizable offence are prima facie made out. The existence of a registered document does not, by itself, foreclose inquiry into whether it was procured by deception. At this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the allegations of cheating and conspiracy are entirely baseless or inherently improbable. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 14 MCRC-7914-2023 Insofar as the challenge to the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned JMFC directing registration of FIR and the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the revisional Court affirming the same are concerned, this Court finds no jurisdictional error warranting interference. The Magistrate was competent to direct registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. upon being satisfied that the complaint disclosed cognizable offences. The revisional Court has examined the matter and affirmed the said order. Merely because this Court has, upon deeper scrutiny, found that offences relating to forgery are not prima facie made out against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the direction to register FIR itself was illegal or without jurisdiction.
Consequently, the petitions are partly allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No.257/2022 registered at Police Station University, Gwalior, and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed to the limited extent they pertain to offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the present petitioner. The investigation and further proceedings shall continue in accordance with law for the remaining offences, including Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.
The impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.191/2023 affirming the order dated 10.05.2022 is upheld.
It is made clear that any observations recorded herein are confined solely to adjudication of the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall not influence the investigating agency or the trial Court while considering the matter on merits.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177 15 MCRC-7914-2023 (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR, JUDGE pwn* 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02 d9d593f, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7064434, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=61b9d129971d2ea4fd4455ed49ea436ea65e26164beeed89153 191c56e98ce21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.02.24 11:23:33 +05'30'