[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 19th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46146 of 2024
NARENDRA JAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saket Udeniya - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Mr. Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Present petition under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of FIR
registered at Crime No.652 of 2024 Police Station Kotwali District
Shivpuri for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the disputed property is situated at
Survey No. 80 min 4, and its area is 6,000 sq. ft. The admitted position is
that the petitioner is the purchaser, petitioners No. 2 and 3 are witnesses,
and respondent No. 2 is the owner of the property. The transaction that
resulted in the registration of the FIR began on 20.01.2023, when the
petitioner, upon the respondent's proposal, intended to purchase the
property. The transaction continued over time, and the payment made,
totaling Rs.85,00,000/-, was credited to the account of respondent No. 2.
Two documents were executed in this regard: one in the shape of a receipt
and the second in the shape of an agreement. The total consideration was
fixed at Rs. 2,250 per sq.ft..
3. Subsequently, with the lapse of time, malice developed in the mind
of the private respondent, and despite the execution of the agreement, the
respondent did not fulfill the promise contained in the agreement and
ultimately refused to honor it. Since an attempt was made to commit fraud,
in such circumstances, an FIR was lodged by the petitioner at Crime No.
884 of 2023 for the offense under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC
registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Shivpuri (M.P.). After this FIR, the trial
proceeded, and to the petitioner's surprise, the respondent again attempted
to alienate the property to the third party. For that purpose, two sale deeds
were executed, which again resulted in the petitioner preferring Civil Suit
No. 204-A/2024 before the competent Civil Court, along with an
application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. After notice, the respondent
marked his presence, and after hearing the rival parties, the competent
Civil Court, vide order dated 27.05.2024 (Annexure P/6), granted interim
relief in favor of the petitioner.
4. After the order of injunction was passed, the respondent no.2 defeating
the provisions of law, the impugned FIR was registered by respondent
against the petitioners with the allegation that the agreement which is made
basis for entire consideration is neither notarized nor genuine. The
complainant has come out with the pleading that the agreement which has
been relied by the petitioners is prepared forged for the purpose of causing
loss to the private respondent. To the very surprise, the police by non-
application of mind registered FIR against the petitioners while they have
completely failed to appreciate the fact that the matter is sub-judice before
learned Civil court and so called agreement which has been disputed by
this private respondent, its validity and genuineness is already sub-judice
before the learned civil court thus the police cannot usurp the jurisdiction
of learned Civil Court by registering FIR. Hence this petition.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the basic issue involved in
the present matter is whether an FIR can be registered in relation to a
pending issue that is the subject matter of civil litigation. The undisputed
fact on record is that a civil suit was filed in relation to the same property
based on the same agreement. Thus, the validity has to be decided by the
Civil Court, in which the respondent/complainant is already participating.
However, misusing power and money, the FIR was lodged in relation to
the same agreement, which shows that the FIR was lodged deliberately to
exert pressure over the petitioners.
6. It is a settled principle of law that a civil dispute cannot be
culminated into a criminal dispute. In this case, the civil dispute is pending
between the parties for more than one year, and they are already facing a
criminal trial arising out of the FIR registered by the petitioners. Therefore,
this FIR was lodged as a counterblast to the petitioner's FIR.
7. It is further submitted that if the said allegation is taken to be true
that no agreement was entered into between the parties and that a
fabricated and false agreement has been made, which is not even notarized.
Therefore, the Specific Relief Act is important to be noted here, as the
agreement may not be accepted in evidence but could be accepted for
corroboration purposes. In such circumstances, Counsel relied upon the
order passed by this Court in the case of Radheyshyam and Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Anr., passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3020 of
2024. The relevant Paragraph 13 of the judgment is reproduced below.
"13. Therefore, the ingredients of none of the offences alleged in
the FIR are made out against the appellants and thus, no offence
can be said to have been committed by them. The act of the
appellant at best constitutes a civil wrong and does not call for
any criminal action against them. A civil wrong cannot be given
a criminal colour merely to coerce the appellants into registering
the sale. The judicial process cannot be used as a tool to enforce
specific performance of an agreement. Respondent no. 2 has
ample remedies under the civil law and he has already resorted
to the same by filing a civil suit for specific performance which
is pending adjudication before the relevant forum. Thus, such a
criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to continue."
8. The penal laws were never meant for harassment therefore, it cannot
be attempted to be used as sword instead of shield. The innocent should
always be protected and the attempt of private respondent deserves to be
defeated by quashing of FIR.
9. Per contra, counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the
present FIR, dated 18.10.2024, was registered on a complaint made by the
respondent/Complainant based on acts of forgery, cheating,
misrepresentation, and fraudulent conduct committed by the petitioners in
relation to the subject property. These acts constitute clear criminal
offences and cannot be diluted or treated as a mere civil dispute.
10. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashment by
projecting the matter as a civil dispute; however, such a plea is wholly
misconceived. Their actions reveal the deliberate fabrication of documents,
manipulation of dates, and the fraudulent preparation of a forged
agreement, which constitute distinct criminal offences independent of any
civil cause of action.
11. Notably, in the earlier FIR dated 22.12.2023, the petitioners themselves
stated that the alleged agreement was purely "oral." However, the same
petitioners subsequently instituted Civil Suit RCSA No. 24/2024 on
12.04.2024 and astonishingly pleaded the existence of a written agreement
dated 15.03.2023, thereby admitting contradictory facts with the intention
to mislead multiple forums. Such conduct goes far beyond a civil dispute,
as the fabrication of documents and the use of false instruments to cause
wrongful loss are distinctly criminal offences punishable under the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Therefore, the FIR dated 18.10.2024 is entirely
justified and should not be interfered with.
12. It is a settled position of law that civil and criminal proceedings can
continue simultaneously when the allegations disclose criminal
ingredients; the mere pendency of a civil suit does not bar criminal
prosecution nor does it wash away criminality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S., (2010) 14 SCC 552 has
categorically held that the same facts may give rise to both civil and
criminal remedies. Availing a civil remedy does not preclude setting in
motion criminal proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be
permitted to take shelter under the "civil dispute" doctrine to seek
quashment when the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of
cognizable offences.
13. Furthermore, this Hon'ble High Court in MCRC No. 1367/2017,
Manish Teegal & Others vs. State of M.P., held that while an investigation
is pending, the FIR or charge-sheet should not be quashed at the threshold,
as the Court must allow the investigating agency to collect evidence.
14. In view of the above, since (i) the written agreement is prima facie
forged, (ii) stamp papers were not issued on the date claimed, (iii)
petitioners have taken contradictory stands in different forums, and (iv) the
investigation is still in progress, the FIR dated 18.10.2024 cannot be
quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS. The petitioners are
attempting to escape criminal liability for their fraudulent acts. Hence, the
present FIR is legal, justified, and supported by strong evidence of forgery
and fraud; it deserves to reach its logical conclusion. Any attempt to quash
the same would result in a miscarriage of justice.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents
appended thereto.
16. The Court notes that the existence of a transaction between the
parties regarding the purchase of the plot is an admitted fact. Additionally,
it is established that the respondent No. 2 is the legal owner of the disputed
property. It is further observed from the impugned order that the
plaintiff/petitioner has established a prima facie case and shown that the
balance of convenience lies in his favor regarding the disputed plot.
17. Concerning the element of irreparable harm, the trial Court's
attention is drawn to the precedent in Smt. Pushpamala Raje alias
Samishtha Devi v. Mahendra Singh and others, 2011 (2) MPWN 98,
wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that if a sale agreement has been
executed and there is a risk that the defendant may transfer the property to
a third party during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff would suffer
irreparable loss. In this instance, the recent sale of the plot by defendant
Nos. 1 (Respondent) and 2 to Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 further reinforces the
necessity of protection. Thus, all three essential ingredients for the grant of
an injunction are satisfied in the Plaintiff's favor. In such circumstances,
the Trial Court granted interim relief to the petitioners for a fixed duration
to ensure that the interests of justice are balanced.
18. Prima facie, it is evident from the record that FIR No. 884/2023 was
registered at the instance of the petitioners against the respondent for
offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC, alleging
misappropriation of the amount received by the respondent at different
times for the sale of the disputed plot. Subsequently, another FIR dated
18.10.2024 was registered at the instance of the respondent against the
petitioners, based on allegations of forgery, cheating, misrepresentation,
and fraudulent conduct in relation to the same subject property.
19. It is true that the matter is sub-judice before the learned Civil Court,
and the validity and genuineness of the so-called agreement disputed by
the private respondent are already under judicial consideration. However,
prima facie, as per the FIR dated 22.12.2023, the petitioners themselves
stated that the alleged agreement was purely 'oral.' Subsequently, an
agreement was produced, purportedly executed on 15.03.2023; however,
the stamp paper used for this agreement was purchased only on
15.03.2024. Prima facie, forgery is established by these facts and
circumstances. Therefore, no interference is warranted to quash the FIR, as
the matter involves evidence and the genuineness of the document must be
decided by the Trial Court during the course of the proceedings.
20. Accordingly, present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA)
JUDGE
LJ*
