Ishaq Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 16192 MP

                       1
                                                   Cr.R. No.5792/2019

          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 BENCH AT INDORE

                      BEFORE
   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                ON THE 7th OF DECEMBER, 2022
              CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5792 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
   ISHAQ PATEL S/O SHEIKH MOHAMMAD AYYUB, AGED ABOUT 40
1. YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 42, GAFFURKHAN KI BAJARIYA
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   AMIDA BI W/O SHEIKH MOHAMMAD AYYUB, AGED ABOUT 60
2.
   YEARS, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                      .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THR.PS. KHUDEL (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                   .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI S.S. THAKUR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

Reserved On : 09.09.2022
        This petition coming on for judgment this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:

                           JUDGMENT

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.,

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the learned 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in ST No.513/2019, whereby charges for the offence punishable under Section 420/120-B, 467/120-B and 468/120-B of IPC have been framed against the applicants.

Cr.R. No.5792/2019

02. Facts of the case in brief are that complainant Harchand filed a civil suit No.71-A/2009 before the court of 7 th Civil Judge Class II, Indore against Bhagwan and others for declaration, partition and permanent injunction, on the basis that he being son and legal heir of late Heeralal Patidar is entitled for 1/3 share of his grand father's agricultural land situated in village Tillorkhurd, Distt- Indore. During pendency of above civil suit, Bhagvan and others entered into a compromise with the complainant stating therein that they will give an amount of Rs.1,80,00,000/- to the complainant and also will get registered sale deed of land situated in village Kanadia, Indore. In pursuance of above compromise, they get executed an agreement to sale in favour of complainant's son - Ashok wherein in Para 3, it has specifically been mentioned that consideration amount of Rs.06.00 crores of the aforesaid land will be adjusted by relinquishing his right in ancestral land by withdrawal of civil suit filed by the complainant against Bhagwan and others. As a result, civil suit filed by the complainant against Bhagwan and others, was withdrawn by the complainant and sale deed of ancestral agricultural land was executed in favour of applicant No.2 wherein complainant's son also executed his consent letter. Afterwards land about which agreement to sale was executed in favour of complainant's son Ashok, was found as government land and the same did not belong to the executor i.e. Gopilal. Since the land in dispute about which complainant filed civil suit, was purchased by the applicants, therefore, complainant filed criminal complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the applicants as well as other co-accused persons whereupon after registration of criminal case, learned trial Court has framed the charges against the applicants and other co-accused persons.

Cr.R. No.5792/2019

03. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that complainant initially filed complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which was found baseless by the police of Police Station Khudel. Learned Court of JMFC vide order dated 16.11.2017 directed the police to submit inquiry report, in pursuance of which charge sheet was filed against the applicants without any basis. Applicants have purchased the land through registered sale deed wherein complainant's son himself given his consent. There is nothing on record which shows that applicants were part of any conspiracy made by the co-accused persons. Hence, impugned order framing charges against them are not sustainable and they may be discharged from the above charges.

04. Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State as well as counsel for objector has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that it is apparent from the record that the land for which civil suit filed by the complainant, was purchased by the applicant's hatching conspiracy against the complainant wherein an agreement to sale of government land was executed in favour of complainant's son Ashok wherein it has specifically been mentioned that consideration amount of Rs.06.00 crores will be adjusted against the withdrawal of civil suit pending with regard to land in dispute which was purchased by the applicants. The aforesaid facts clearly show the involvement of applicants in the matter. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

05. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record

06. It is apparent from the record that complainant filed a civil suit bearing No.71-A/09 before the Court of 7 th Civil Judge Class II, Indore claiming 1/3 share of ancestral agricultural land situated in village Tillorkhurd and during the pendency of the said civil suit, wherein

Cr.R. No.5792/2019

interim injunction was also granted in favour of the complainant, applicants purchased the said land. At the same time, a consent letter was also get executed by the complainant's son in favour of applicant no.2. In return of which, an agreement to sale of government land was executed in favour of complainant's son stating therein that consideration amount of the above land will be adjusted by relinquishing his right in the ancestral agricultural land by way of withdrawal of the civil suit, about which sale deed was executed in the name of applicant No.2.

07. Considering the nature of transactions made between the parties and also considering over all material produced on record, at this stage it cannot be said that the applicants are not involved in the fraud committed with the complainants. Hence, applicants are not entitled to discharge from the charges framed against them. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merit and hereby dismissed.

The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court record forthwith alongwith the copy of this judgment. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the concerned jail authorities for its speedy compliance and necessary action.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge

vibha/-

VIBHA PACHORI 2022.12.08 11:59:43 +05'30'