Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Naresh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6646 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. RAM NARESH SINGH S/O BUNDEL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE R/O.
NEAR NEELKANTHESHWAR MANDIR RAJEEV
NAGAR TILI PS GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VIKRAM SINGH RAJPUT S/O KUNWAR SINGH
RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ADVOCATE NEAR KIDAS ACADEMY SCHOOL
SATYAM NAGAR TILI P.S GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJESH KUMAR SAHU S/O BHAGWANDAS SAHU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
NARYAWALI NAKA WARD MOTI NAGAR SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION MAKRONIYA DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUNDARLAL SHRIVASTAVA MEMORIAL
MAHAVIDYALAYA SHIKSHAN SAMITI
R A J A K H E D I THROUGH MANAGER AND
DIRECTOR AJAY SHRIVASTAVA S/O LATE SHRI
P.N SHRIVASTAVA DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANUBHA JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1 AND SHRI NAVEEN VASWANI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/17/2024
6:18:31 PM
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
been filed to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing the criminal
proceedings registered against the petitioner in R.C.T.No.35 of 2020 pending
before the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Sagar.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that an agreement made between the
petitioners and the respondent no.2 with respect to exchange of land on
07.03.2018 for which Rs.50,000/- was given as advance. Later point of time,
there was huge differences with regard to the price of land sought in exchange,
therefore, the petitioner no.1 was not agreed to exchange the land. Due to such
reason, the respondent no.2 on 03.05.2018 filed an application to the
Superintendent of Police against the petitioners stating that the petitioners have
obtained Rs.9,00,000/- but they have not executed the document of
Tabadalnama and registry of the land in question. The application was
considered by the authorities and the matter was taken into enquiry. After
investigation, the police has filed a charge-sheet under Sections 420 and 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code before the competent court. The learned JMFC has
taken cognizance in the matter against the petitioners.
3. It is argued that looking to the material available on record, no case under
Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the
petitioners as the transactions between the parties are purely of civil nature.
There is no criminal element that can be introduced in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of West Bengal and others, (2022) 7
SCC 124 wherein it is categorically held that in case of agreement and
monetary transaction, the dispute is purely of civil nature until and unless the
guilty intention is being shown from the very insception itself. It is pointed out
that the land in exchange was sought to be of a higher price, therefore,
subsequently, when this aspect was analyzed by the petitioners, they refused to
sale the land. They are ready to return the amount to the respondent
no.2/complainant. The fact remains that the complainant has never approached
for return of the amount, on the contrary, he wants execution of the sale-deed in
any manner, therefore, he some how managed to get a criminal complaint
registered against the petitioners. But the fact remains that these are all the civil
transactions. He has drawn attention of this court to the agreement (Annexure
A/1).
4. Per contra, counsel appearing for the private respondent as well as the
State have vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that the criminal
case is made out against the petitioners. They done the criminal breach of trust
and they have denied to execute a sale-deed in pursuance to the Ekrarnama
which has been entered into between the parties.
5. However, the fact remains that the Ekrarnama being the only document
available on record to show the transactions between the parties. How a
criminal element is introduced in the case where agreements are not being given
effect to.
6. A specific question was put to the counsel for the respondent no.2 that in
the event when the agreement is not given effect to what is the remedy available
to him, he has consciously submitted before this court that he is having a
remedy of specific performance of agreement to sale or to file a civil suit for
recovery of the amount which has been given to the petitioners. He has failed to
point that how a criminal element is introduced in such matters.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again cautioned about
converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (2006)
6 SCC 736 noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:-
"13. ...any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not
involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal
prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.Sagar Suri vs. State of
U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 has held as under:
"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has
been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a
short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a
criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused
it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the
basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code, Jurisdiction- under this Section has to be exercised
to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai vs.
State of West Bengal and others, (2022) 7 SCC 124 has held as under:
"The order of the High Court is seriously flawed due to the fact that in
its interim order dated 24.03.2017, it was observed that the
contentions put forth by the Appellant vis-à-vis two complaints being
filed on the same cause of action at different places but the impugned
order overlooks the said aspect and there was no finding on that
issue. At the same time, in order to attract the ingredients of Section of
406 and 420 IPC it is imperative on the part of the complainant to
prima facie establish that there was an intention on part of the
petitioner and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant
right from the inception. Furthermore it has to be prima facie
established that due to such alleged act of cheating the complainant
(Respondent No. 2 herein) had suffered a wrongful loss and the same
had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused(appellant herein). In
absence of these elements, no proceeding is permissible in the eyes of
law with regard to the commission of the offence punishable u/s 420
IPC. It is apparent that the complaint was lodged at a very belated
stage (as the entire transaction took place from January 2008 to
August 2009, yet the complaint has been filed in March 2013 i.e., after
a delay of almost 4 years) with the objective of causing harassment to
the petitioner and is bereft of any truth whatsoever."
10. In the present case also, there is an agreement entered into between the
parties regarding exchange of the land for a particular amount dated 07.03.2018.
Subsequently, when it was found that the price of the land which was agreed to
exchange was very high, therefore, the petitioners have refused to execute a
sale-deed. They are always ready to return the amount which has been taken
from the private respondent. The private respondent has not approached them
to collect the money. On the contrary, he has some how managed to get a
criminal case registered against them. There is nothing on record to show apart
from the agreement between the parties, that any cheating or criminal breach of
trust is being done. In case there is non-compliance of the terms and conditions
of the agreement entered into between the parties, the private respondent is
having a remedy of filing a civil suit for specific performance of agreement to
sale or even to file a civil suit asking for recovery of money. Not even a single
document or a legal notice is shown by the private respondent that he ever
demanded the money. Under these circumstances, the criminal proceedings
cannot be continued. Hence, the criminal proceedings registered against the
petitioners in R.C.T.No.35 of 2020 pending before the court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class Sagar are hereby quashed.
11. At this stage, counsel appearing for the private respondent submits that
he may be granted liberty to file a civil suit seeking recovery of money or
execution of agreement to sale. He is always at liberty to file a civil suit. The
question of limitation will be considered by the concerned civil court before
whom the proceedings are likely to be initiated.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed and disposed
off. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
