Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Lata vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17746
1 MCRC-6071-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6071 of 2017
SMT. LATA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Eshaan Datt -
Advocate for petitioners.
Shri C.K. Mishra - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
In the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., order dated
02.12.2015 passed by trial Court in purported exercise of powers conferred
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is under challenge and also order dated 16.12.2016
passed by Revisional Court by which Revisional Court has declined to
interfere with the order passed by trial Court.
2. Learned senior counsel contended that in the present case, the
allegations were levelled against late Mahadev Prasad Bhargav, who is
husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners nos.2 & 3 that he while
projecting himself to be Sarvarakar of a public religious trust namely
Ramchandra Shree Mandir, obtained a permission from Sub-Divisional
Officer on 20.10.2011 and on the strength of said permission, alienated the
land which belonged to the trust and complaint was filed alleging inter alia
that no land of the trust could have been alienated and as such, on the basis
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17746
2 MCRC-6071-2017
of said complaint, the case was registered against late Mahadev Prasad
Bhargav, the then Sub-Divisional Officer - Satyendra Agrawal and also Sub-
Registrar, who was instrumental in executing the sale deed in favour of
subsequent purchaser. During the pendency of trial, Trial Court exercised the
powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and only in view of the fact that
petitioner stood as consentor to sale deed which is contained in Annexure
A/1, cognizance against them was also taken. Learned senior counsel
contended that in the present case, there was absolutely no material to invoke
the powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. so far as present petitioners were
concerned. They were neither vendor nor vendee of the sale deed. No
amount of consideration was transferred to them. No such allegations were
ever levelled by anyone including the complainant on whose complaint, the
inquiry was conducted and inquiry report was reduced into writing vide
Annexure A/3 dated 04.08.2012. It is contended by senior counsel that entire
inquiry report nowhere even contains any whisper regarding name of
present petitioners. Their implication is only based on the fact that they are
legal heirs of late Mahadev Prasad Bhargav. It is further contended by senior
counsel that one of the co-accused, who was the then Sub-Registrar Roop
Singh Choudhary also challenged his prosecution by filing a petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court and this Court vide order dated
02.03.2017 quashed the proceedings in M.Cr.C. No.4347/2014. Thus, the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
3. Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.
4. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17746
3 MCRC-6071-2017
5. Perusal of record reflects that complaint was lodged against original
Sarvarakar late Mahadev Prasad Bhargav and present petitioners are his legal
heirs. The implication of present petitioners precisely based on the fact that
they stood as consentor to the sale deed which is contained in Annexure A/1.
It is also undisputed that subsequently, vide the judgment of this Court
passed in S.A. No.604/2014 on 22.03.2022, late Mahadev Prasad was
declared to be Sarvarakar of the trust. It is also not in dispute that
proceedings initiated against Roop Singh Choudhary have already been
quashed. Therefore, so far as present petitioners are concerned, their role was
only confined to the fact that they stood consentor to the sale deed. Apart
from the aforesaid role of petitioners, prima facie there is no implicating
material against them.
6. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, Trial Court fell in error
while taking cognizance against petitioners in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
7. During the course of hearing, counsel for the State has also
expressed his inability to point out the involvement of present petitioners as
there is no implicating material against them except the aforesaid role which
was played at the time of execution of sale deed.
8. Thus, in this view of the matter, the order impugned dated
02.12.2015 passed by J.M.F.C., Betul and also order dated 16.12.2016
passed by Revision Court in Criminal Revision No.38/2016 stand set aside.
The petitioners stands discharged from the charges. Their bail bond and
surety bond, if any, stand quashed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17746
4 MCRC-6071-2017
9. With the aforesaid, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
stands allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
