Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 September, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22794
1 MCRC-30906-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 18th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30906 of 2025
RAJENDRA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri APS Tomar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Madhu Sudan Shrivastava - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
The present application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant seeking the quashment of FIR dated 17.06.2025, bearing Crime No.353 of 2011, registered at Police Station Hujrat Kotwali, District Gwalior (M.P.), for alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, 34 of IPC against the present petitioner.
As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, Jagat Narayan Thapak, had submitted a complaint to the effect that it came to his notice through a letter from the District Treasury, Gwalior, received under the Right to Information Act (Letter No. Kosh/Stamp/2011-914 dated 05.07.2011), that the stamp paper on which the sale contract executed by Rajendra Sharma (applicant) was written had been purchased in the name mentioned therein. However, no license was ever issued to any individual named D.K. Goyal to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/22/2025 11:12:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22794 2 MCRC-30906-2025 sell stamps. From this authorized information, it is clear that the stamp paper of the said sale contract is forged and connected with fraudulent activities. The stamp paper on which the contract was executed does not bear the seal of the District Treasury, nor does it indicate the date of issuance by the treasury, which makes it evident that the stamp paper is forged and fabricated. According to the circular of the Directorate of Treasury and Accounts, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (Circular No.Kosha/Mudrank/2004/550 dated 15.06.2004), it is mandatory to affix the seal and date of the District Treasury on every stamp paper, which shows from which treasury and on which date the stamp was issued. This order was issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to prevent the purchase and sale of forged stamp papers.
Information obtained from the District Treasury Office, Gwalior, under the Right to Information Act revealed that in the year 2006-2007, Rs.20/- stamp papers were not issued in the name of D.K. Goyal by the District Treasury, Gwalior. Chandan Singh Baghel, due to old age, was unable to walk properly and was deaf. Therefore, he had handed over the family responsibilities to his elder son, Ansharam. Being in a helpless situation, Ansharam acted as the head of the household. According to statements, Chandan Singh never executed any contract with Rajendra Sharma (applicant) during his lifetime.
According to a letter from the District Registrar, Gwalior (Letter No. 1114/GP/03/2011 dated 09.09.2011), it was found that the stamp was purchased in the name of D.K. Goyal. However, no license was ever issued by the District Registrar's office to this person to sell stamp papers.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/22/2025 11:12:20 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22794 3 MCRC-30906-2025 The stamp paper on the contract was obtained at a value lower than its proper denomination and was acquired through illegal and forged means. Therefore, the contract executed on this forged stamp paper cannot be legalized by affixing proper stamps afterward. Under such circumstances, before accepting the contract for registration, it is necessary to verify its authenticity using proper stamp value to prevent potential loss of government revenue. On the basis of such complaint, alleged offences were registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before this Court that this is the second petition filed by the applicant under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahinta, 2023 (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) before this Court. The first petition, MCRC No. 50542/2024, was filed seeking quashment of the FIR on the sole ground of compromise in the civil suit. However, the compromise decree was later challenged on account of alleged non-fulfillment of conditions by the complainant, leading to the withdrawal of the earlier petition on 01.07.2025 with liberty to file a fresh petition.
It is further submitted that the original complainant, Jagat Narayan Thapak, has since passed away, and his son, Prakhar Thapak, has been impleaded as complainant in the present FIR. The dispute arose from an Agreement to Sale dated 19.09.2007 executed between late Chandan Singh and the applicant in respect of 32 Bigha 1 Biswa land situated at Village Salupura, District Gwalior. While the agreement provided for the sale of the entire land to the applicant, only part of the land (12 Bigha) was sold to the applicant's family. The remaining 20 Biha 1 Biswa was sold by late Chandan Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/22/2025 11:12:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22794 4 MCRC-30906-2025 Singh to Angoori Devi, mother-in-law of Jagat Narayan Thapak. Of the 12 Bigha sold to the applicant's family, 4 Beegha were sold in favour of the wife of Jagat Narayan Thapak, as both families shared good relations.
It is further submitted that Chandan Singh, in his written statement, admitted the execution of the agreement but alleged fraud by Jagat Narayan Thapak in obtaining sale deeds in favour of Angoori Devi. Angoori Devi denied the existence of any agreement between the applicant and Chandan Singh and raised issues regarding the stamp paper, claiming it was forged and insufficiently stamped.
It is further submitted that upon direction of the Court below, the matter regarding stamp duty and validity of stamp paper was referred to the Collector of Stamps, who after inquiry, held the stamps to be genuine, levied a penalty of Rs. 46,800, and impounded the agreement. Despite this, Jagat Narayan Thapak later lodged a complaint claiming the stamps were forged and sold by an unauthorized vendor, leading to alleged FIR.
It is further submitted that the prosecution, after due investigation, found no case against the applicant and filed a closure report and the Trial Court initially stayed criminal proceedings pending the civil suit.
It is further submitted that the civil suit eventually resulted in a compromise, wherein the applicant agreed to execute sale deed in favour of Jagat Narayan Thapak and not challenge previous sales to Angoori Devi. The compromise decree was passed on 21.12.2021.
It is further submitted that the the FIR is manifestly illegal and baseless and the disputed agreement to sale dated 19.09.2007 was executed by late Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/22/2025 11:12:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22794 5 MCRC-30906-2025 Chandan Singh in respect of land in Salupura, Gwalior, and Chandan Singh himself admitted its genuineness in civil proceedings. Allegations of forgery and use of unauthorized stamp papers are factually incorrect, as the stamps were purchased from an authorized vendor (Dhanendra Goyal), confirmed by RTI, and validated by the Collector of Stamps, who impounded the agreement after levying a penalty. Furthermore, the parties had entered a civil compromise wherein the applicant agreed to execute sale deeds in favor of the complainant. Since the FIR arises out of allegations already addressed in civil proceedings, with original parties deceased, and the prosecution itself filing a closure report, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. Prima facie, no offence under Sections 420, 467, 408, or 471 IPC is made out.
FIR is manifestly illegal, arbitrary, and baseless, as the main allegation of forgery is untenable since Chandan Singh, the original signatory, admitted the agreement is genuine. Therefore, no third party can allege fraud against the applicant. Allegation regarding sale of stamp paper by unauthorized vendor is factually incorrect. RTI which was obtained confirms the vendor, Dhanendra Goyal, was duly authorized and the complainant himself filed this document in the civil proceedings. The Collector of Stamps has already impounded the agreement after due inquiry, which precludes any claim of forged stamps or unauthorized sale. The FIR is based on complaint by a non- party to the agreement and the original signatories and complainants have passed away, making continuation of criminal proceedings futile. In light of the above submissions, it is prayed that alleged FIR registered at Crime No. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/22/2025 11:12:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22794 6 MCRC-30906-2025 353/2011, Police Station Huzrat Kotwali, District Gwalior (M.P.) and further proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant had opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending as follows:
The FIR cannot be quashed merely on the basis of civil compromise or penalty imposed by the Collector. Allegations of forgery, use of unauthorized stamp papers, and fabrication of agreement are independent criminal offences which must be tried. It is further submitted that the disputed stamps do not bear "Madhya Pradesh" inscription, serial numbers, or treasury seal, as mandated by Treasury Circular dated 15.06.2004. This prima facie establishes forgery, which requires evidence at trial.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, vide order dated 21.11.2017, had already taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 258 and 259 IPC, and the same was upheld in Criminal Revision No. 586/2017. This order attained finality and makes the present petition not maintainable.
The alleged vendor's licence was not renewed after 31.03.2007, hence he could not have lawfully sold stamps in September 2007. This strengthens the allegation of forged and fabricated stamp papers.
The Collector's order dated 08.11.2011 only imposed a fine on petitioner without issuing notice to complainant or recording findings of genuineness. No benefit can be derived from it. Though compromise decree was passed, the petitioner failed to perform his obligations, including Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/22/2025 11:12:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22794 7 MCRC-30906-2025 refund/transfer of amounts paid. Execution proceedings are pending, and the petitioner has taken contradictory stands to delay and harass the complainant.
Smt. Angoori Devi, the real purchaser, is still alive but was not impleaded. Legal heirs of late Jagat Narayan Thapak were also omitted, showing suppression of facts. Forgery of stamp papers strikes at the root of public revenue and constitutes a serious economic offence. Such matters cannot be quashed at the threshold and must go to trial for adjudication on evidence.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The genesis of the FIR lies in an agreement to sale dated 19.09.2007 executed by late Chandan Singh in favour of the applicant. The dispute between the applicant and the complainant's family revolves around the validity and enforceability of the said agreement vis-à-vis subsequent registered sale deeds. The Apex Court in the matter of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, has held that where the dispute is essentially civil in nature, continuation of criminal proceedings is not justified.
The executant of the agreement, late Chandan Singh, in his written statement in civil proceedings, admitted the execution of the agreement. Once the original party to the transaction has accepted its genuineness, allegations of forgery raised by third parties lose their substratum. In such circumstances, the essential ingredients of Sections 467 and 468 IPC are not attracted.
The matter was referred to the Collector of Stamps, who, after inquiry, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/22/2025 11:12:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22794 8 MCRC-30906-2025 impounded the agreement and levied a penalty for deficit stamp duty. No finding of forgery or fabrication was recorded. This statutory determination, coupled with the absence of treasury seal objections at the relevant time, militates against the prosecution's stand of forged stamp papers. Once the competent authority has acted, subsequent allegations of forgery appear unfounded.
The investigating agency, after due inquiry, filed a closure report opining that no case was made out. Though the Magistrate subsequently took cognizance upon protest, the fact that the investigating agency itself found insufficient material reinforces the absence of prima facie evidence.
The parties eventually resolved their disputes in Civil Suit No. 39/2010, culminating in a compromise decree dated 21.12.2021. The Apex Court in the matter of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, has clarified that when parties have amicably settled civil disputes arising out of commercial transactions, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process, particularly where offences do not have an overwhelming social impact.
The FIR was lodged belatedly in 2011, nearly four years after the agreement, and subsequent to civil litigation. Such timing suggests that the criminal process was invoked to exert pressure in civil proceedings. In the matter of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court has recognized such cases as fit for quashing to prevent abuse of law and miscarriage of justice.
Both original complainant Jagat Narayan Thapak and executant Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/22/2025 11:12:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22794 9 MCRC-30906-2025 Chandan Singh have since passed away. The surviving dispute is essentially about property rights, which is the domain of civil courts. Continuing criminal proceedings in these circumstances would serve no useful purpose and only prolong harassment.
Section 420 IPC requires deception and dishonest inducement, which are absent since Chandan Singh admitted the agreement. Sections 467/468 IPC require forgery of a valuable security or document with intent to cheat, which is negated by the executant's admission and the Collector's findings. Section 471 IPC requires knowing use of a forged document, which again cannot stand when genuineness was accepted in civil proceedings.
Thus, the FIR does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence and continuation of proceedings would be wholly unwarranted.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that the dispute is essentially civil in character, the allegations of forgery are not borne out from the record, and the FIR has been instituted as a counterblast to civil litigation. Accordingly, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the application is allowed, and FIR No.353/2011 registered at Police Station Huzrat Kotwali, District Gwalior, for alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, 34 of IPC along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
With the aforesaid observation, the present application stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/22/2025 11:12:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22794 10 MCRC-30906-2025 pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/22/2025 11:12:20 AM