Madhya Pradesh High Court

S.K. Suman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2022

Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                                     :: 1 ::

                                                             MCRC-20462-2020
                                          (S.K. Suman vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)


     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : GWALIOR
                              SINGLE BENCH
                  Misc. Criminal Case No.20462/2020

                                  S.K. Suman
                                     Versus
                     State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
                        **********************

CORAM

Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivatava **********************

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance

Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri Dheeraj Budholia, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1-

State.

Respondent No.2 present in person.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on                                    :      18/2/2022
Whether approved for reporting                 :      No

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-O R D E R-

(31/03/2022)

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (for brevity "CrPC") has been filed by the

petitioner seeking quashment of the FIR as well as the other :: 2 ::

MCRC-20462-2020 (S.K. Suman vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

consequential proceedings arising out from it, in connection with

Crime No.605/2019 by Police Station Maharajpura, District

Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 409,

420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.

[2] Facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that

respondent No.2- Rohit Chadda lodged a written report in the year

2019 alleging therein that on 23/03/1992, he has applied for

allotment of plot from M.P. Housing Board, Gwalior thereafter

allotment order was issued in the year 1992 and the amount has

been deposited in the year 1996. Thereafter, he went to Haryana for

job and when he came back in the year 2018, he has found that

pursuant to the allotment order in his favour, a lease deed got

executed in the favour of some other person who has impersonated

himself as Rohit Chadda. The aforesaid lease deed was executed in

connivance with the Officials of Housing Board. On the basis of

aforesaid complaint, the present FIR has been registered by the

Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the

offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466,

467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. Hence, this petition has been

filed for quashing the aforesaid FIR and all consequential

proceedings arising out of it.

[3] Challenging the impugned FIR, it is submitted by learned :: 3 ::

MCRC-20462-2020 (S.K. Suman vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

counsel for the petitioner that the registration of FIR against the

petitioner is an abuse of process of law and same deserves to be

quashed. The petitioner, who is Deputy Commissioner, Housing

Board, Gwalior, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

present case. Even if the allegations made in the FIR and the

material collected by the prosecution are considered to be true at

their face value, then they do not constitute any offence whatsoever

alleged against the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent

No.2 has applied for allotment of plot in Housing Board in the year

1992 and after fulfilling the condition, an allotment order has been

issued in his favour on 23/03/1992 with respect to Plot No.E.E.-

288/B DD Nagar Gwalior subject to deposition of amount of

Rs.7,716/-. Thereafter, the Estate Manager, M.P. Housing and

Infrastructure Development Board, Gwalior has issued various

notices to Rohit Chadda on the address recorded in the record of

M.P. Housing Board for depositing the requisite amount so that

further proceedings may be done but no information was given to

respondent No.2/complainant at any point of time regarding change

of his address. It is further submitted that the petitioner has joined

his duty in Housing Board, Gwalior initially in the year 2002 as

Estate Officer and he was transferred from Gwalior in the year

2006. Thereafter, the petitioner has again joined his duty in the :: 4 ::

MCRC-20462-2020 (S.K. Suman vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

Housing Board, Gwalior as Deputy Housing Commissioner on

26/08/2019. During that period, the petitioner worked only as

Executive Engineer and nothing to do with allotment work.

Respondent No.2, after lapse of more than twelve years, contacted

the Housing Board, has made a complaint regarding allotment of

work and the same was inquired into and notices have issued by the

petitioner for enquiry in the matter. The petitioner has also apprised

the aforesaid facts of the case to the concerning Superintendent of

Police by way of representation dated 3/12/2019 (Annexure P/7).

It is further submitted that the property has been recorded in the

name of Rohit Chadda in the record of Housing Board and at the

time when the allotment was made and a lease deed was executed,

the safeguards of identification which are available on record were

followed and as per the prevalent procedure and standard practices

of that time, the transaction has been done and there was no role of

the petitioner as he was only working as Estate Officer and it was

not a part of his official duty to ascertain the identity of actual

person. Respondent No.2- Rohit Chadda, after execution of lease

deed, has sold the property to one Satish Parashar and the same is

of no consequence as no NOC was taken for that transaction from

the Housing Board and still the property belongs to Rohit Chadda

as per record of the Housing Board. In support of his contentions, :: 5 ::

MCRC-20462-2020 (S.K. Suman vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

he has also relied upon the order dated 27/1/2017 passed by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of Dinesh

Kumar Mathur vs. State of Madhya Pradesh:[M.Cr.C.No.374

of 2017]. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the

impugned FIR and proceedings initiated thereunder, if any, may be

quashed.

[4] Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for the State as

well as respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the submissions

put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner and have submitted

that the present case has been registered against the applicant for

the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 463, 464, 465,

466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC, therefore, no interference

at this stage is called for by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction

under Sections 482 of CrPC. It is further submitted that the lease

deed in favour of the impersonator was executed by the petitioner

during his service period with his signatures and stamp which is

evident from the petition itselt. It is also the contention of

respondent No.2 that he has made a complaint alleging therein that

when he applied for allotment of land, there is complete different

signatures of the petitioner. It is further argued that it is a settled

legal proposition of law that while considering the case for

quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings, the Court should not kill :: 6 ::

MCRC-20462-2020 (S.K. Suman vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

a still-born child and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled

unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. In support of

his contentions, he has also relied upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.:[Criminal Appeal No.330

of 2021]. Hence, no interference is called for and a prayer is made

for dismissal of this petition.

[5] Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the documents available on record.

[6] Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as

under:-

"482. Saving for inherent power of High Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

[7] The powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are

partly administrative and partly judicial. The Hon'ble Apex Court

in State of Karnataka vs. Muniswami [AIR 1977 SC 1489] held

that the section envisages three circumstances in which the inherent

jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, "to give effect to an order

under CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and to :: 7 ::

MCRC-20462-2020 (S.K. Suman vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

secure the ends of justice."

[8] The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is discretionary.

The Court may depend upon the facts of a given case. Court can

always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same

by exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. It is true that

their powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other

provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be

exercised sparingly and with caution.

[9] It is also settled law that the inherent power under Section

482 of CrPC has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and

should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process

of a criminal trial. Authority of the Court exists for the

advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to

injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would

be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in

absence of specific provisions in the Statute.

[10] In the instant case, the first information report has been

registered under Sections 409, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468,

471 and 120-B of the IPC. The allegations leveled against the

petitioner in the impugned FIR are of cheating and forgery.

Cheating is defined in Section 415 of IPC and is punishable under

Section 420 of IPC.

:: 8 ::

MCRC-20462-2020 (S.K. Suman vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

[11] Section 415 of IPC reads as under:-

"415. Cheating. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat."

[12] On a reading of the aforesaid Section, it is manifest that in

the definition there are two separate classes of acts which the

person deceived may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he

may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to

any person. The second class of acts is the doing or omitting to do

anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if

he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing

must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the

inducing must be intentional but need not be fraudulent or

dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the

offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show

that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of

making the promise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep a

promise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable

intention to break the promise from the beginning.

:: 9 ::

MCRC-20462-2020 (S.K. Suman vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

[13] This Court now deals with the ingredients of Section 467 of

IPC. Section 467 of IPC reads as under:

"467. Forgery of valuable security, will etc.- Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, moveable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any moveable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The basic ingredients of offence under Section 467 of IPC

are altogether missing even in the allegations of the FIR against the

petitioner.

[14] In the case at hand, at the most, there could be mistaken or

irregularity in the procedure followed for allotment of plot,

therefore, there is no mens rea in the case and any irregularity done

without mens rea could not amount an offence. Further, civil

liability & claims cannot be settled by applying pressure with the

aid of criminal proceedings and criminal prosecution should not

used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta

or with an ulterior motive to pressure the accused. Even if all the

averments made in the FIR are taken to be correct, the case for :: 10 ::