Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitin Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 December, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4251 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NITIN KUMAR S/O MANOHARLAL NAMDEV R/O DHAR
ROAD, MANAWAR, DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIKRAM MALVIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION MANAWAR, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI D.G. MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 r/w S.
401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.6.2023 passed
in S.T. No.25/2023 by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar,
whereby the charges under Section 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") have been framed against the petitioner.
2. As per the prosecution story, petitioner Nitin Kumar executed a sale
deed on 6.12.2000 in favour of the complainant Badrilal Sharma regarding the
sale of land bearing Survey No.100/3 admeasuring 750 sq.ft. Then petitioner
again executed another sale deed dated 8.10.2018 in favour of Kishor Singh
Dawar and Manjula Dawar admeasuring 800 sq.ft. from Survey No.100/3/1/1/2.
Petitioner knowing the fact that the complainant is the owner of the aforesaid
plot, made conspiracy with other co-accused persons and constructed row-
house on the aforesaid plot and again sold the same to the other co-accused
persons. Some time after complainant visited the land and found that the row-
houses are constructed upon his land. During the investigation it has been
gathered that petitioner along with other co-accused persons in furtherance of
their common intention, committed fraud with the complainant. Petitioner
prepared forged registry documents with intention to commit fraud and used it
as original. Accordingly offence under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC has
been registered against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. After
completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the trial
Court.
3. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, on 15.6.2023 framed
charges under Section 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of IPC against the
petitioner and other co-accused persons. Being aggrieved by the impugned
order, petitioner has preferred this criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of plot
sold to the complainant was handed over by the petitioner to the complainant at
the time of execution of sale deed dated 6.12.2000. After taking possession of
the plot, it was the responsibility of the complainant to secure his possession.
After lapse of 19-20 years complainant has lodged false and fabricated report
against the petitioner. Both the lands are separate land having different survey
numbers. This dispute is purely civil in nature and the petitioner is being
dragged in this criminal litigation. The action of the complainant is malafide to
abuse the process of law. Hence, he prays that the impugned order dated
15.6.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the petitioner be discharged
from all the charges imposed upon him.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the copy of the sale deed and other documents
available on record, it appears that petitioner has executed a sale deed in favour
of the complainant from Survey No.100/3 admeasuring 750 sq.ft. and name of
the complainant got mutated in the revenue record bearing Survey No.100/3/2.
Then petitioner has executed sale deed in favour of Kishor Singh Dawar and
co-accused Manjula Dawar regarding Survey No.100/3/1/1/2 and on the basis
of the said sale deed name of Kishor Singh Dawar and Manjula Dawar has been
mutated as an owner of the said land. From perusal of the Panchnama made by
the Patwari on 21.2.2021, it appears that Patwari has submitted the report that
both the plots of Survey No.100/3/2 and 100/3/1/1/2 are mentioned in the
revenue record as a part of Survey No.100/3 and in the west side of the four
boundaries, land of Dadawadi Trust was situated and a house has been found
constructed adjacent to the wall of Dadawadi.
7. From perusal of the sale deed dated 15.3.1997 it appears that basically
Nitin Kumar was owner of the said land and he has purchased the said land
from Dhapu Bai. From perusal of the aforesaid documents, it appears that it is
not a mere case of civil dispute and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence
available on record, it appears that the same land was sold again by the present
petitioner. Therefore, possibility of committing fraud and preparing forged
documents cannot be ruled out. Therefore, prima facie cogent evidence is
available on record against the present petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim and others
Vs. State of Bihar and others vide order dated 4.9.2009 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.1695/2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6211/2007), but this
citation is related with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The present case is mere a
criminal revision, therefore, the aforesaid citation is not applicable in this case.
9. Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh
Chander and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has laid down that "at
the initial stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with proof
but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which,
if put to trial, could prove him guilty. It is further held that all that the Court has
to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the
innocence of the accused or not and the final test of guilt is not to be applied at
that stage."
10. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis and the law laid down by the
Hon'ble apex Court, I am of the considered view that no illegality or irregularity
has been committed by the trial Court while framing the aforesaid charges
against the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
trilok
