Pawan Dabhade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15916 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pawan Dabhade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024

Author: Subodh Abhyankar

Bench: Subodh Abhyankar

                                                                   1




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                                             AT INDORE
                                                              BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
                                                    ON THE 29th OF MAY, 2024


                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21007 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           PAWAN DABHADE S/O SHRI GOVIND RAO
                           DABHADE, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: RETIRED HIG-3, MUNI
                           NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                             .....APPLICANT
                           (SHRI AVIRAL VIKAS KHARE, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
                           POLICE STATION DINDAYAL NAGAR,
                           DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                           .....RESPONDENT
                           ( SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                 This application coming on for order this day, the court passed the following:

                                                               ORDER

1. This petition under Section 482 of of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'Cr.P.C') praying for quashment of F.I.R relating to crime No.40/2016, registered at Police-Station Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam, with regard to offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC, charge sheet

and consequent criminal proceedings in S.T. No.102/2016, pending before the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam.

2. As per prosecution story, complainant/ Premlata Kothari submitted a written complaint on 19.01.2016 at Police Station D.D. Nagar, Ratlam that Lalit, Ashok, Ramesh Sharma and the officers and employees of M.P. Housing Board have illegally sold Plot No. D-196, Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam by way of conspiracy impersonating original owner Lalit. According to the complainant, she was in need of a plot for construction of a house and he met Ramesh Sharma and Ashok Dayaya who shown him Plot No. D-196, Dindayal Nagar, and told that the owner/allottee Lalit is interested in selling the said plot. She finalized the deal in Rs.6,61,000/-. On the date of registry, she asked about the owner/Lalit then the Officer of M.P. Housing Board i.e. Pawan Kumar and employee Manohar Sharma told her that they have already completed all the formalities in respect of Lalit. The employees and officers of the Housing Board duly identified Lalit and made the complainant belief that she is purchasing the plot from the real allottee. The police registered the case u/s. 419, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of of the IPC against the accused persons. The investigation revealed that the present Suhas Chitale working as Tracer has identified the impostor Lalit from her photographs and for which Nanalal gave him Rs.500/-.

3. The applicant was also working as Estate Manager and he also believed on the verification report given by Suhas Chitale. He was at

the most negligent in discharging the duties as he did not cross-verify the report. There is no material on record that he intentionally or by way of any conspiracy he mutated the name in the record of the Housing Board. Therefore, the petition filed by applicant deserves to be allowed.

4. After due investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against applicant and other co-accused persons. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the Sessions trial No.102/2016 is presently pending before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has simply discharged his obligations as Administrative Authority of M.P. Housing Board, Ratlam and that the matter was brought before him by the Assistant Estate Manager after due processing and that, he has not played any role in the alleged transfer of plot in question. It is further submitted that the applicant has acted strictly as per rules and with utmost good faith when he made proposal for mutation and after being satisfied with the physical verification report and public notice inviting objections in respect of mutation, approval for the same has been given, therefore, it cannot be said that they have committed any fraud or forgery.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that identically placed co-accused- Vishnu Dutt has already been discharged by the coordinate Bench of this Court order dated

5.1.2024 in CRR.No.1395/2023 (Vishnu Dutt Vs. State of M.P.).

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that there are ample evidence on record to implicate the present applicant with the present crime.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. To constitute an offence under Section 419 and 420 of IPC, it is required to establish that 'cheating' within the meaning of Section 415 of IPC was made. In the entire charge-sheet, there is no allegation against the applicant that he, in the capacity of Administrative Authority, while discharging his duties with regard to mutation, has deceived any person fraudulently or dishonestly and induced such person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. Nor it is the case of the prosecution that he intentionally induced a person to do or omit to do anything, if not so deceived. In view of the aforesaid, prima-facie, charges with regard to offence under Sections 419 & 420 of IPC are not made out against the applicant, even if all the material available in the charge-sheet are accepted at their face value.

10. To constitute an offence under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, it must be established that a false document was prepared within the meaning of Section 464 of IPC, which runs as under :-

"464 Making a false document. --[A person is said to make a false document or false

electronic record-- First --Who dishonestly or fraudulently--

(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;

(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;

(d) makes any mark denoting the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or 342 [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed;

Secondly --Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with 342 [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly

--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his 342 [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."

11. In the instant case, the allegation is that the applicant, without properly verifying the identity of the Premlata, has approved the mutation, however, such act does not fall under any of the clauses of Section 464 of IPC which deals with making of false document.

Unless, it is established that a false document was made within the meaning of 464 of IPC. Offences under Section 467, 468 & 471 of IPC cannot be there. In this regard I have referred to judgment Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751). Thus, it is relevant from the charge-sheet that, even after accepting all the allegations made therein, the offences alleged against the applicants under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC are not at all made out.

12. Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch, Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC Page 604, has held that if even after accepting all the allegations and the material with the charge-sheet, necessary ingredients to constitute alleged offence(s) are not available, then it will be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings/chargesheet else it will result in lead to unnecessary harassment to the accused.

13. In view of the aforesaid and that identically placed co-accused- Vishnu Dutt has already been discharged by the coordinate Bench of this Court in CRR.No.1395/2023 (Vishnu Dutt Vs. State of M.P.) order dated 5.1.2024, it is an appropriate case for quashment of FIR in Crime No.40/2016, P.S.Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam and all consequential proceedings qua applicant- PAWAN DABHADE

14. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and First Information Report in Crime No.40/2016 registered at Police- Station Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam, with regard to offences under

Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC and all the consequent proceedings having arisen therefrom, against applicant -PAWAN DABHADE, are hereby quashed.

15. Certified copy as per rules.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE das