Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kayyum Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9787
1 CRA-3371-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3371 of 2025
KAYYAM KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat - advocate for the appellant.
Shri Virendra Khadav appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Mohammad Zeeshan Khan, learned counsel for the respondent
[OBJ].
ORDER
The present appeal filed by the appellant under section 14-A(2) of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail in
connection with Crime No.67/2025, registered at Police Station-Sadalpur
District-Dhar (MP) for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC,
1860 and Section 3(2)(f), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred as "the
Act").
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.03.2025,
passed by Special Judge SC/ST(PA), Dhar, whereby learned Special Judge
rejected the bail application of appellant with finding that there is prima facie
case against the appellant punishable under the offences.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9787
2 CRA-3371-2025
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. As per prosecution, the
appellant has purchased the land bearing survey no.157/2/1 paiki area 0.014
hectare by registered sale deed from Sajan i.e. father of the complainant Ms.
Rachna. The allegations against the appellant is only that he has managed
some other person before the Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed
who impersonating himself as father of the complainant, has singed the sale
deed whereas his father has never signed the said sale deed. Hence, it is
alleged that the sale deed is forged and fabricated. Based on the said
registered sale deed, the name of the appellant is mutated in the revenue
records and father of the complainant has never raised any objection or not
made any complaint in this regard to any authority. Further, the complainant
has filed a suit for cancellation of the said sale deed before the learned trial
Court and the same was dismissed by learned trial Court and bothering by
the dismissal of the suit of complainant, the complainant has lodged a false
complaint against the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant is
aged about 70 years old and if the applicant is arrested, his image will be
tarnished. It is alleged that registered deed was executed by another person
and the cheating and forgery by impersonation was committed by present
appellant. Hence, counsel for appellant requested for anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State as well as complainant have opposed
the appeal and submitted that since this is an anticipatory bail under Section
SC/ST (POA) Act, hence, it is not maintainable under the provisions of
Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST (POA) Act and therefore, the appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9787
3 CRA-3371-2025
should be rejected on the basis of maintainability.
5. In reply, counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs.
State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018)6 SCC 454 in support of his
submissions. It is submitted that there is nothing on record by which it can be
assumed that the offence was committed and only because the complainant
is belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, the prima facie case
cannot be made out. Further, he placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of B. Venkateshwaran vs. P. Barkthavatchalam
[(2023) 11 SCC 182] wherein it has been held that "it seems that the private
dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings. Initiation
of the criminal Proceedings for the offence under Sections 3(2)(v) and (va)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, therefore, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court."
Another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.M. Shah vs. State
of Maharashtra and Another [(1995) 5 SCC 767] is relied upon wherein it
has been held that the Judgment of Criminal Court is superseded by
Judgement of Civil Court. Counsel for the appellant has further vehemently
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria
vs. State of Kerala and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.2622/2024
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted anticipatory bail to the appellant
therein by considering the statutory constructions of Section 18 of the SC/ST
(P.A.) Act, 1989.
6. Before considering rival submissions of both the parties, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9787
4 CRA-3371-2025
provision of Section 18 and 18-A of the Act is worth to refer here.
" 18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons
committing an offence under the Act.--Nothing in section 438 of
the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of
any person on an accusation of having committed an offence
under this Act.
18-A No enquiry or approval required (1) For the purposes
of this Act,--(a)preliminary enquiry shall not be required for
registration of a First Information Report against any person; or
(b)the investigating officer shall not require approval for the
arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of
having committed an offence under this Act has been made and no
procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall
apply.
.(2). The provision of Section 438 of the Code shall not
apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or
order or direction of any Court. "
7. The learned counsel for appellant has emphatically placed his
reliance on Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra) and B. Venkateshwaran
(supra). However, it emerged that actually Section 18-A of the Act has been
enacted only to nullify the judgment of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan
(supra).
8. On this aspect, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at the initial excerpt of para
No. 2 of the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India, reported in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9787
5 CRA-3371-2025
2020 2 SCC Online SC 159 has observed as under:-
"2. It is submitted that Section 18-A has been enacted
to nullify the judgment of this Court in Subhash (supra)
in which the following directions were issued.."
9. On this aspect, in Prithviraj Chauhan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court after considering the law laid down in the case of Shakuntala Devi Vs.
Baljinder Singh (2014) 15 SCC 521, Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan
(supra) viewed as under:-
" 9. The section 18A(i) was
inserted owing to the decision of
this Court in Dr. Subhash
Kashinath (supra), which made it
necessary to obtain the approval of
the appointing authority
concerning a public servant and the
SSP in the case of arrest of
accused persons. This Court has
also recalled that direction on
Review Petition (Crl.) No.228 of
2018 decided on 1.10.2019. Thus,
the provisions which have been
made in section 18A are rendered
of academic use as they were
enacted to take care of mandate
issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath
(supra) which no more prevails.
The provisions were already in
section 18 of the Act with respect
to anticipatory bail.
10. Concerning the applicability of
provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, it
shall not apply to the cases under
Act of 1989. However, if the
complaint does not make out a
prima facie case for applicability
of the provisions of the Act of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9787
6 CRA-3371-2025
1989, the bar created by section 18
and 18A (i) shall not apply. We
have clarified this aspect while
deciding the review petitions.
11. The court can, in exceptional
cases, exercise power under
section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the
cases to prevent misuse of
provisions on settled parameters,
as already observed while deciding
the review petitions. The legal
position is clear, and no argument
to the contrary has been raised.
12. The challenge to the provisions
has been rendered academic. In
view of the aforesaid clarifications,
we dispose of the petitions."
10. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
i n Prathviraj Chohan( Supra) , it is clearly evinced that only in those cases
where the prima facie case is not made out, the rigour of Section 18 and 18-
A of the Act can be eschewed. In view of that, the matter has been
pondered. As per the FIR and the statements of complainant party, at this
stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no reasonable
ground to reach at the conclusion that no prima facie case against the
appellant is made out. As per the available record, the sale deed was
executed in favour of the appellant himself, as alleged by impersonating the
father of complainant by another person who was managed by the appellant,
it cannot be said that no prima facie case, is made out against the appellant.
11. So far as the authorities cited by counsel for the appellant in the
case of B. Venkateswaran (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9787
7 CRA-3371-2025
quashed the charges under Sections 3(2)(v) and (va) of SC/ST (P.A) Act and
in the case of V.H. Shah (supra) , the citation has been cited for procedural
enactment of Civil and Criminal cases and the law in the case of Shajan
Skaria (supra) is concerned, certainly, the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted
anticipatory bail to the appellant therein, but the acts of the appellants in the
case at hand and in the case of Shajan Skaria (supra) were different. Hence,
no benefit to the appellant can be afforded on the basis of aforesaid
judgments and the same are distinguished on law and facts both.
12. In view of the aforesaid deliberations, since, there is a prima facie
case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, 1860 and Section 3(2)(f),
3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. against the appellant is available, then
the anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the appellant. Hence, the finding of
learned Trial Court is affirmed and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
13. It is directed that the learned Trial Court should not be influenced
by the observation of this Court passed in this appeal while passing any
order/judgment in future.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
