Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mudit Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2023

Author: Anjuli Palo

Bench: Anjuli Palo

                                                                         1
                                   IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                         AT JABALPUR
                                                              BEFORE
                                                  HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
                                                        ON THE 3 rd OF MARCH, 2023
                                                 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13257 of 2013

                         BETWEEN:-
                         MUDIT JAIN S/O DR. RAJESH JAIN, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
                         PREM NURSING HOME M.G. ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....APPLICANT
                         (BY SHRI AMIT SAHNI - ADVOCATE )

                         AND
                         1.        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR P.S. CIVIL LINES
                                   SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH. COLLECTOR
                                   (STAMPS)/ DISTT. REGISTRAR, SATNA, COLLECTORATE,
                                   DISTT. SATNA, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI MANISH SINGH - PANEL LAWYER)

                                   This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
                                                                     ORDER

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the proceedings of Criminal Case No.3622 of 2007 against him pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC registered in pursuance of the FIR lodged in police station â€Â" Civil Lines, Satna vide Crime No.143 of 2007.

2. The petitioner and the one Smt. Rajni Jain have purchased 0.202 hectare of land Signature Not Verified SAN bearing khasra nummber 728 on 19.10.2006 and they also purchased 435 square feet land of the same khasra number from the same seller - Bhagwandas Daswani on 20.10.2006.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he and Smt. Rajni Jain who are purchasers of the properties have concealed the material documents and it is alleged that the purchasers and seller are the same in both the transaction and the khasra number is also the same but they got executed two different registry and thus, caused heavy loss of revenue to the Government. Therefore, on a written complaint of District Registrar, Satna offences were registered against the present applicant and Smt. Rajni Jain and Deputy Registrars for the aforementioned offences.

3. It is contended that the petitioner is a registered doctor. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, seller of the property has cheated him by concealing the facts. The police after recording evidence of the witnesses filed challan.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Registrar submitted the written complaint against the petitioner, Smt. Rajni Jain and Deputy Registrars also but the case was registered only against the petitioner and Smt. Rajni Jain. It shows mala fide and partial act of the respondents. The petitioner is a doctor and purchaser of the property whereas all the documents were prepared by the seller. The seller has executed all the requisite works relating to registration of the properties. The petitioner has neither cheated anyone nor did he cause any alleged loss to the Government. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has referred to various provisions of Stamp Act and has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Ravinda Babulal Jain v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5002; Mandeep Singh Dhaliwal v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 7383; Satya Narain Prasad v. Bhagwan Ramdas 1995 Supp (4) SCC 629; and Government of AP v. P. Laxmi Devi (Smt.) 2008 (4) SCC 720.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions Signature Not Verified SAN raised by the petitioner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents as well as Date: 2023.03.04 15:32:47 IST 3 the decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Ravindra Babulal Jain (supra). In the said case, it was alleged that the applicant therein completed the transaction by preparing false documents, false record and fraudulently and dishonestly used the said record as genuine one. In that case the Court held that if the in-put form is not correctly filled, zone number is not mentioned and that incorrect market value is mentioned, no offence can be said to be made out. Here facts of the case are different.

8. Counsel for the petitioner has placed heaving reliance on the decision in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi (Smt.) (supra). The said case related with the payment of stamp duty on a sale deed relating to immovable property. A writ petition was filed in the High Court for a declaration that Section 47 - A of the Stamp Act as amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1998 which required a party to deposit 50% deficit stamp duty as a condition precedent for a reference to the Collector under Section 47-A was unconstitutional. The High Court declared the said section unconstitutional. Hon'ble the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and upheld the validity of the aforesaid amended Act. In the said case, demand was not made by registrar. In the said case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that there is always a difference between a statute and the action taken under a statute. In the present case, subject matter and allegations against the petitioner is different. Here, it is alleged that sub-registrars have acted in collusion with the parties to sale in question, but the case did not proceed due to lack of sanction of 197 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the decision relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable in facts.

9. As the documents and the facts were concealed and same parties have got executed registry of two plots of the same land bearing same khasra number, they caused Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2023.03.04 15:32:47 IST 4 revenue loss to the tune of Rs.80,637/-. In this context, statement of Prabhakar Chaturvedi recorded under Section 161 is material. He is district registrar in Satna. He stated that 0.202 hectare of land bearing khasra number 728 was sold by seller - Bhagwan Das Vaswani vide registered sale deed dated 19.10.2006 and 435 square feet of the same khasra number was sold vide registered sale deed dated 20.10.2006 between the same purchasers and seller with the collusion of the sub-registrars. In this transaction, the revenue was earned at Rs.23633/- whereas if both the lands were registered simultaneously, the revenue income would have been Rs.80,637/-.

10. Though the counsel for the petitioner has cited various decisions, yet it cannot be said that nothing exists against the petitioner. As per prosecution there is collusion among the seller, purchasers as well as the sub-registrars. The statement of Prabhakar Chaturvedi is also against the petitioner and other accused person. The defence taken by the petitioner, can be availed by him at appropriate stage during trial. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a case where power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised at this stage.

11. Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. is dismissed.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE ks Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2023.03.04 15:32:47 IST