Pooja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16586 MP

                                   -1-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT I N D O R E
                         BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                  ON THE 9th OF OCTOBER, 2023


             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15548 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
POOJA W/O APOORV BHOGLE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ADVOCATE 16 MISHRA NAGAR, INDORE DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                                       .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH, ADVOCATE)

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
1. THROUGH POLICE STATION KANADIYA, DISTRICT INDORE
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
     RAJESH MESHRAM S/O TULSIRAM MESHRAM 71A SHRIKANT
2.
     PALACE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 / STATE BY SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL, DEPUTY ADVOATE
GENERAL)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI GURDEEP SINGH DANG, ADVOCATE)
        This application coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
                              ORDER

01. The applicant has filed the present M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of F.I.R. registered at Crime No.108/2018, Police Station - Kanadiya, District - Indore under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the

Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

02. On 21.03.2018, Rajesh Meshram S/o Tulsiram Meshram submitted a written complaint at Police Station - Kanadiya, District - Indore against Sanjay Thakur, Girija Thakur and Pooja Bhogle (present applicant) alleging that he entered into an agreement to sale with Sanjay Thakur, Girija Thakur for purchase of Flats No.203, 301, 105, P1 & P2 situated in Multi Storeyed Building, Rishabh Arcade, constructed on Plot No.CA7, Bicholi Mardana, Indore, but they deliberately did not execute the sale deed in his favour, therefore, action be initiated against them. Paragraph - 12 of the F.I.R. is reproduced below:-

^^eSa Fkkuk dukfM;k ij lgk- mi- fujh{kd ds in ij inLFk gWawA fnukad 19- 05-2017 dks Jheku uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; [ktjkuk bankSj ds dk;kZy; ls vkosnd jkts'k esJke firk rqylhjke esJke fuoklh 71,] Jhdkar iSysl bankSj dk tkap vkosnu i= lat; Bkdqj] fxjtk Bkdqj fuoklh 25 loZ lqfo/kk uxj bankSj ds fo:) tkap gsrq izkIr gqvk Fkk] ftldh tkap eq> lmfu ds }kjk dh xbZA nkSjkus tkap vkosnd jkts'k esJke ds dFku ys[k fd;s x;s rFkk vukosnd lat; Bkdqj] fxjtk Bkdqj fuoklh 25 loZ lqfo/kk uxj bankSj dks dFku nsus gsrq fnukad 30- 05-17 dks lwpuk i= fn;k x;k Fkk tks dFku nsus gsrq mifLFkr ugha gq;sA ckn vkosnd ds vkosnu dh tkap fjiksVZ Jheku uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; [ktjkuk dks i= Øa- 55@PP@yksdy@17 fnukad 13-11-17 dks Hkssth xbZ ftlesa Jheku uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; [ktjkuk }kjk tkap fjiksVZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ckn voyksdu ds Jheku }kjk mDr tkap fjiksVZ dk izfrosnu Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; ¼iwoZ½ bankSj dk i= Øa- uiqv@[ktjkuk@55@PP@yksdy@17 fnukad 17-11-17 dks Hksth xbZA Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; ¼iwoZ½ bankSj }kjk izfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; ds vkns'k Øa- iq- v@b@iwoZ@jh@lhek@424@18 fnukad 18-03-2018 dk e; f'kdk;r uLrh ds izkIr gqvkA ftldk voyksdu djrs vkjksihx.k lat; Bkdqj] fxjtk Bkdqj rFkk iwtk Hkksxys ds fo:) vijk/k /kkjk 420] 120ch] 34 Hkknfo dk vijk/k ik;k tkus ls izdj.k iatc+) dj foospuk esa fy;k x;kA vkosnd jkts'k esJke ds }kjk fn;s x;s f'kdk;r vkosnu i= dh udy fuEukuqlkj gS izfr] Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn; dukfM;k Fkkuk bankSjA fo"k; lat; Bkdqj ,oa Jherh fxfjtk Bkdqj }kjk eq>s jftLVªh ugha djus dh fyf[kr f'kdk;r@fjiksVZ ntZ djus ckorA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;karxZr fouez fuosnu djus okyk eSa izkFkhZ jkts'k esJke firk Jh rqylhnkl esJke fuoklh 71 Jhdkar iSysl] fcpkSyh gIlh jksM+ bankSj vkils fouez fuosnu dj vkidk /;ku vkdf"kZr djuk pkgrk gWaw fd eq> izkFkhZ }kjk lat; Bkdqj firk xaxkjke Bkdqj ,oa Jherh fxfjtk Bkdqj ifr lat; Bkdqj nksuks fuoklh 142] lafon uxj dukfM;k jksM+] bUnkSj ls Jhth osyh fcpkSyh enkZuk bankSj ij fLFkr Hkw[kaM Øa- lh, 7 ij fLFkr cgqeaftyk Hkou _"kHk vkdsZM esa ¶ysV Ø 203] 301] 105] P 1] P 2 foØ; vuqcU/k ds ek/;e ls Ø; fd;s x;s gSA vuqca/k vuqlkj eq>

izkFkhZ }kjk lat; Bkdqj ,oa fxfjtk Bkdqj dks laiw.kZ jkf'k vnk dj pqdk gWaw ,oa ¶ysV ij dCtk Hkh izkIr dj fy;k gS ijUrq bu nksuks ds }kjk esjs i{k esa mDr ¶ysV dh jftLVªh tku cw> dj ugha djkbZ tk jgh gSA vr% Jheku ls fuosnu gS fd eq> izkFkhZ dh bl fyf[kr f'kdk;r ij ls mDr nksuksa vkjksihx.k lat; Bkdqj o fxfjtk Bkdqj ds fo:) fjiksVZ ntZ dj mfpr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA ;gh fou; gSA Hkonh; gLrk{kj vaxzsth esa viBuh; ¼jkts'k esJke½ eksckby ua- 6685510151"

03. Though the applicant has been arrayed as accused No.3, but no such allegations have been levelled against her. The investigation has revealed that Sanjay Thakur & Girija Thakur sold Flat No.301 to the applicant vide sale deed dated 26.11.2015.

04. Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this applicant is a bonafide purchaser. She purchased the property by way of registered sale deed which cannot be said to be a forged document. She took a loan from Union Bank of India after due verification of the title document, therefore, she has not committed any offence. Shri Singh further submits that instead of filing a suit for specific performance of contract, respondent No.1 lodged an F.I.R. in connivance with the police in order to put undue pressure on the sellers. Civil litigation has wrongly been given the colour of criminal case and it is nothing but a misuse of process of law. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon couple of judgments delivered by the Apex Court in the cases of Rekha Jain & Another v/s The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2022) 3 SCC 497 & Sarabjit Kaur v/s The State of Punjab & Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360.

05. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that the proceedings of F.I.R. and criminal case cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as it is a matter of evidence whether this applicant is a bonafide purchase or not ? By way

of conspiracy, the applicant purchased the property, for which the vendor had already entered into an agreement with the complainant. Instead of executing the registered sale deed in his favour and in order to defeat his claim of property, this applicant and vendor have entered into an agreement to sale, therefore, it is case of cheating and forgery with him. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amit Kumar v/s Hariram Ahirwar & Others (Criminal Appeal No.3430 of 2018).

06. From perusal of the contents of allegations / disclosure of offence in the F.I.R., it appears that prima facie it is a case of breach of contract. Sanjay Thakur and Girija Thakur entered into an agreement to sale with the complainant for sale of Flats No.203, 301, 105, P1 & P2 situated in Multi Storeyed Building, Rishabh Arcade, constructed on Plot No.CA7, Bicholi Mardana, Indore, but did not execute the sale deed and sold Flat No.301 to the present applicant. Therefore, the complainant was required to file a suit for specific performance of contract and cancellation of sale deed in which he was required to pay the ad valorem court fee. But instead of adopting the expensive remedy, he chose to lodge an F.I.R. The police, without examining whether the cognizable offence is made out or not, has registered the F.I.R.

07. This Court as well as Apex Court has repeatedly held that breach of contract does not give rise to the criminal prosecution for cheating, unless the fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on allegation of failure to keep on promise will not be enough to initiate the criminal proceeding under

420 and 120-B of the IPC. It has also been held in number of case that registered sale deed cannot be termed as a forged document when the title of vendor is not in dispute. Paragraph - 13 of the judgment delivered in the case of Sarabjit Kaur (supra) is reproduced below:-

"13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that the respondent No.2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by the respondent No.2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court."

[Emphasis Supplied]

08. Paragraph - 6 of the judgment delivered in the case of Rekha Jain (supra) is reproduced below:-

"6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having perused the allegations in the complaint/F.I.R., it can be seen that the main allegations are against the other co-accused - Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others. The only allegation against the appellants is that they have purchased the property in question, which was attached in the year 1998-1999 against the amounts due and payable to the depositors, who had deposited in Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. Between 1998-

999. It is to be noted that the property has been purchased by the

appellants in the year 2019. Nothing is brought on record that at the time when the property was purchased by the appellants, the attachment was continued and/or any attachment was registered. There are no allegations that the appellants are related to the other co-accused Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others. Even from the averments and the allegations in the F.I.R., it cannot be said that there is any prima facie case made out against the appellants for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The main allegations are against other co-accused. Therefore, to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be an abuse of process of law and the Court and unnecessary harassment to the appellants, who seem to be the purchasers of the property on payment of sale consideration. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have exercised its powers and discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants."

[Emphasis Supplied]

09. In light of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the F.I.R. registered at Crime No.108/2018 at Police Station - Kanadiya, District - Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said crime number are hereby quashed.

10. With the aforesaid, M.Cr.C. stands allowed.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH Date: 2023.10.10 17:32:04 +05'30'