Chattisgarh High Court
Bhajanlal Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 June, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1703 of 2022
Bhajanlal Agrawal S/o Shri Ram Manorath Agrawal Aged About 72 Years
R/o New Shanti Nagar, Gorkha Colony, Pandri Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Nirmal Mahawar S/o Late Umrao Lal Mahawar Aged About 69 Years R/o
26 Central Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3. Shanti Mahawar D/o Late Umrao Lal Mahawar Aged About 71 Years R/o
26 Central Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur
Chhattigarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the petitioner : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.
For respondent No.1/State : Shri R.S. Marhas, Addl. A. G.
For respondent No.3 : Shri Anoop Majumdar and Shri
Krishna Tandon, Advocates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
27.06.2024
1. The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by
the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No. 618/2022 registered
at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC
against the petitioner and entire criminal proceedings pursuant to
impugned FIR.
2. The allegations in the FIR is that the land bearing Khasra No. 190
renumbered as Khasra No. 190/6 was originally belongs to Vishnu
Prasad (forefather of the petitioner). Vishnu Prasad sold the land to
Amritlal Gujrati vide sale-deed dated 25.01.1946 and subsequently
the said portion of the land was transferred from one person to
other. It is also alleged that Krishna Natthani, Shankarlal,
Purushottam Natthani, Ganga Das Natthani were the last
purchasers from whom Umraolal Mahawar father of the
complainants had purchased the portion of the land i.e. Khasra No.
190/1 area 16089 Sq. ft. Vide sale deed dated 01.08.1974 the land
bearing Khasra No. 190/1 area 16089 Sqft. was purchased by
Umraolal Mahawar from Seth Purushottam & Others. This dispute
pertains to this portion of the land. Amrtilal Gujrati the original
purchaser never purchased the property from power of attorney
holder. The petitioner made an application for mutation and the
said dispute has already been decided by the Board of Revenue
vide its order dated 01.06.2015, passed inn Revenue Appeal Case
No. RN/14/R/B- 121/528/2013 and the writ petition i.e. W.P.(227)
No. 617/2015 is pending before this Hon'ble High Court. The
judgment and decree dated 09.04.1976 passed by the Civil Court
was not pertaining to the property in question and this property was
not the subject matter and even the complainants were not party to
the said Civil Suit. The petitioner with the collusion with the revenue
officers obtained the order of mutation on the basis of the judgment
and decree dated 09.04.1976 and has obtained the order of
mutation on 24.08.2021. The petitioner has obtained the order of
mutation without impleading the complainants and thereby has
committed an offence of cheating. Khasra No. 190/1 renumbered
as Khasra No. 190/6 was registered in the name of Vishnu Prasad
and after the sale deed dated 25.01.1946 the said property was
transferred in the name of Amritlal Gujarati. The partition dated
10.10.1953 has nothing to do with Khasra No. 190/6.
3. The brief facts of the case is that, the respondent No. 2 & 3 have
submitted the written complaint to the police authorities and on the
basis of the said complaint the FIR bearing No. 618/2022 has been
registered against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable
under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The
FIR was lodged inter alia on the allegations that, the present
applicant has obtained the order of mutation dated 24.08.2021
from the Court of Additional Tehsildar Raipur by suppressing the
factual aspects and by misinterpreting the judgment of the civil
court and thereby has committed an offence of cheating. It has
been alleged that, the complainant Nirmal Mahawar has lodged the
FIR inter alia on the allegations that the complainant and his family
members have purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 190
renumbered as Khasra No. 190/6 from Seth Purushottam Natthani
and others and from Kishore Chand & Others. The sale deeds
were executed by the registered owners. It has been further
alleged that, the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 01.06.2015
has already passed an order which is binding on the accused. It
has been alleged that the writ petition against the said order of the
Board of Revenue is still pending. The accused again moved an
application in the year 2020-21 and has obtained the order from
the Court of Nayab Tehsildar on 24.08.2021 and got the order of
mutation in respect of Khasra No. 190/6. The revenue officer in
collusion with the accused has passed the order of mutation, even
without impleading the complainant and his family members and by
playing fraud has obtained the ex-parte order. It has been further
alleged that their predecessor in title never purchase the property
from power of attorney holder and this property have nothing to do
with the partition dated 10.10.1953. From bare perusal of the
allegations as made in the FIR, it appears that a pure civil dispute
has been given colour of the criminal offence. Hence this petition.
4. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that complainants/respondents No. 2 & 3 have suppressed the fact
from the police authorities. Vide order dated 24.08.2021 was
passed by the court of Tehsildar, Raipur and the complainants
made an application for review of the said order, which was
rejected by the Tehsildar. the complainants also preferred an
appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer against the order dated
24.08.2021 but the pendency of the appeal has been suppressed.
The complainant has alleged that the writ petition i.e. WP227 No.
617/2015 is pending before this Hon'ble High Court- The
complainants have suppressed the fact that the writ petition has
already been withdrawn prior to lodging of the FIR in light of the
order dated 24.08. The Board of Revenue has passed an order on
01.06.2015 and has passed the an order and Tehsildar, Special
Duty Officer Parivartit Sakha was directed to carry in correction in
revenue records in light of the judgment of the civil court dated
09.04.1976 and 15.07.1994 and in light of the said judgment the
petitioner approached the court of Tehsildar and made an
application and the final order was passed. Vide order dated
24.08.2021 is a subject matter of the writ petition bearing W.P.(C)
No. 3001/2022 and the petitioner has obtained the interim order
from this Hon'ble Court and the subject matter is pending before
this Hon'ble Court in the said writ petition. The pendency of the writ
petition, relief sought, the interim order passed by this Hon'ble
Court, has completely been suppressed. Petitioner has suppressed
and misrepresented before the police authorities that the original
sale deed dated 25.01.1946 was not executed by power of attorney
holder. From bare perusal of the said sale deed, it is apparent that
it was executed by power of attorney holder. Hence this petition.
5. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that it is very clear from the FIR, that none of the
ingredients are attracted against the petitioner in light of the correct
facts. He also submits that in his personal capacity he has no role
or involvement in the alleged incident and the offences alleged in
the impugned FIR. In fact, there has not been any conversation,
whatsoever, with respondent Nos.2 & 3 at any point of time. There
are no allegations against the petitioner and there is no material
which even remotely indicates the involvement or any act of the
petitioner leading of commissioning of alleged offence and the
essential ingredients of alleged offences is not made out against
the petitioner. Hence, he prays to allow the petition and quash the
impugned FIR.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents
oppose the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings and documents appended thereto.
8. From the perusal of the FIR and documents it appears that the
dispute is with regard to mutation of the property and litigations
with regard to the mutation of the said property has been carried
out. The FIR also reflects that a civil suit was also filed and
decided. The litigation with regard to mutation of the property
seems to have travelled upto various appellate forums including
the revenue Board provided under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue
Code, 1959. From the allegations, it also appears that the
petitioner had got mutated his name in disputed property in
connivance with the revenue officers. Thus overall scrutiny of the
FIR it is clear that it is purely a dispute of civil nature between the
complainant and the petitioner herein.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the issue in Vinod Natesan v.
State of Kerala, (2019) 2 SCC 401 has observed that there was
no criminality on part of the accused and a civil dispute is tried to
be converted into a criminal dispute. Thus to continue the criminal
proceedings against the accused would be an abuse of the
process of law. Relevant Para of the said judgment is quoted as
below:-
"10.Having heard the appellant as party in person and the learned
advocates appearing on behalf of the original accused as well as the
State of Kerala and considering the judgment¹ and order passed by the
High Court, we are of the opinion that the learned High Court has not
committed any error in quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the
complainant. Even considering the allegations and averments made in
the FIR and the case behalf of the appellant, it cannot be said that the
ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 are at all satisfied. The dispute
between the parties at the most can be said to be the civil dispute and it
is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute. Therefore, we are also of
the opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused
will be an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the High Court has
rightly quashed the criminal proceedings. Merely because the original
accused might not have paid the amount due and payable under the
agreement or might not have paid the amount in lieu of month's notice
before terminating the agreement by itself cannot be said to be a
cheating and/or having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420
IPC as alleged. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by
the High Court."
10. Recently, in Sachin Garg v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC
82 the Supreme Court reiterated its view that a commercial
dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of
Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal
code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal
complaint. Relevant para of the said judgment is quoted as below:-
"20. While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons a magistrate
only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance,
the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, as has been held in the case of Jagdish
Ram (supra). The same proposition of law has been laid down in the
case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate[(1998) 5 SCC
749]. The learned Magistrate's order issuing summons records the
background of the case in rather longish detail but reflects his
satisfaction in a cryptic manner. At the stage of issue of
summons,detailed reasoning as to why a Magistrate is issuing
summons,however, is not necessary. But in this case, we are satisfied
that the allegations made by the complainant do not give rise to the
offences for which the appellant has been summoned for trial. A
commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the
forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the
penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal
complaint. The learned Magistrate here failed to apply his mind in
issuing summons and the High Court also failed to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the 1973 Code to prevent abuse of the
power of the Criminal Court.
21. It is true that the appellant could seek discharge in course of the
proceeding itself before the concerned Court, but here we find that no
case at all has been made out that would justify invoking the machinery
of the Criminal Courts. The dispute, per se, is commercial in nature
having no element of criminality."
11. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned First
Information Report No.618/2022 registered at Police Station Civil
Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, CG for the offence punishable under
Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner and
entire criminal proceedings pursuant to impugned FIR are hereby
quashed.
Advised Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Kamde
Head Note
The dispute purely of a civil nature has been given the colour of
criminality. Hence FIR quashed.
