Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 W.P. No.27805/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION NO. 27805 of 2023
SUNIL KUMAR GARG AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Smt. Manjeet P.S. Chuckal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Alok Agnihotri- Government Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Heard on : 21.08.2024
Pronounced on : 27.02.2025
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs:-
"(i) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records
pertaining to FIR bearing Crime No.0846/2023 and further be
pleased to quash the FIR Annexure P/1 in so far as it relates to
the petitioner.
(ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records pertaining
to UNCR/1376/2023 and further be pleased to quash the order
dated 05.10.2023 Annexure P/1.
(iii) Any other relief or writ or direction or order which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case be awarded to the petitioners including
the cost of the petition."
2. The brief facts of the case in short are as under:-
2.1 A complaint case was filed by one Vijay Kumar Patel (respondent No.2)
before Judicial Magistrate, First Class and order was issued to the police to
register an FIR under Sections 201, 207, 209, 214, 120-B, 414, 416, 419, 420, 464,
467, 468, 471, 474, 482 and 489 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners
and other persons.
2.2. It is alleged in the complaint case that by sale deed dated 10.12.1990, the
complainant/respondent No.2 purchased the property situate near Bus Stand,
Katni, area ad-measuring 20x75=1500 sq. ft. from one Mevalal Kol. The said
property was protected by erecting a boundary wall from three sides and on one
side, i.e. towards bus stand, a big iron gate with shutter was blocked. The land
situated over Khasra No. 307 and tax of the said land was being paid by
complainant/respondent No.2.
2.3. As per the complaint, in the month of October, 2021, the respondent
No.2 came to know that one Vimal Kumar Patel by manipulating the boundary
mark and also in the khasra entries, sold the land area admeasuring 18x50=900 sq.
ft. of respondent No.2 to one Pawan Kumar Jain and, therefore, the respondent
No.2 filed a case under Section 250 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959
(hereinafter referred to as the Code, 1959) but Vimal Kumar Patel, Pawan Kumar
Jain and Gyan Prakash Nayak managed the things and as such, the complainant
failed to get any relief in his favour and then he lodged the FIR and offence got
registered against Vimal Kumar Patel vide Crime No.73/2022 but nothing was
done against Vimal Kumar Patel. Thereafter, the respondent No.2/complainant
filed a complaint on 19.01.2022 against Vimal Kumar Patel and others to the
Superintendent of Police, Katni continuously but nothing was done by the police
against them. Thereafter, a suit has been filed by the respondent No.2/complainant
before Fourth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Katni vide Civil Suit No.45-A/2022 in
which Vimal Kumar Patel has also filed a counter claim. During the pendency of
the suit, the complainant/respondent No.2 came to know that Vimal Kumar Patel
and Pawan Kumar Jain along with others again sold his land vide sale deed dated
21.10.2022 to Jitendra Namdeo and Rachna Namdeo. A forged Power of Attorney
was executed and land area admeasuring 327.27 sq. ft. was sold to one Neha Soni.
A report in this regard was made to the police but no action was taken.
2.4. Thereafter, a complaint was made to the Court and the Court directed to
register an FIR and as such, the police vide Crime No.0846/2023 registered the
FIR under different sections of the Indian Penal Code against several persons
including the petitioners. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioners for
quashing the FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners had
purchased a chunk of land from one Pawan Kumar Jain vide registered Power of
Attorney dated 27.09.2021 admeasuring 0.40 hectares of Patwari Halka No.42,
Bandobast No. 493, Khasra No.307/1, R.I. Murwara, District Katni. A sale deed
was executed on 29.03.2008 and mutation in this regard was made vide order
dated 22.02.2020.
4. According to counsel for the petitioners, a complaint was made by
respondent No.2 on 19.01.2022 to Superintendent of Police, Katni against Vimal
Kumar Jain alleging that he has broken the lock on 14.01.2022 and taken
possession of his kaccha makaan which he had purchased vide sale deed dated
10.12.1990 from Urmaliya Kol admeasuring 1500 sq. ft. bearing Khasra No.307/1,
P.H. No.45/2, Bandobast No.493, R.I. Murwara, District Katni and requested for
taking action against him. Vimal Kumar Jain also submitted an application under
Section 250 of the Code, 1959 saying that the land admeasuring 0.008 hectares of
Khasra No.307/5, Murwara has been encroached by the respondent No.2. The
Tehsildar vide order dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure P/6) rejected the said application
filed by Vimal Kumar Jain.
5. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent No.2 again
filed a second complaint dated 05.04.2022 to Superintendent of Police, Katni
against Vimal Kumar Jain alleging that he has broken the lock of his plot and took
possession and has started construction over there. Thereafter, a third complaint
was filed by respondent No.2 on 12.04.2022 against Vimal Kumar Jain, Pawan
Kumar and also against witnesses of the sale deed dated 18.10.2017 alleging that
these persons sold the land vide forged sale deed dated 18.10.2017 and as such,
offence registered vide Crime No.73/2022 at Police Station Kuthala.
6. According to counsel for the petitioners, the respondent no.2 again made
a fourth complaint on 31.10.2022 against Vimal Kumar Jain and Pawan Kumar
Jain alleging that they have sold the government land vide fabricated sale deed
dated 18.10.2017. He has also made a fifth complaint on 28.06.2023 against
petitioners and Vimal Kumar Jain, Pawan Kumar and other persons in which it is
alleged that they have sold 327.77 square meter of land through Power of Attorney
vide registered sale deed dated 29.08.2022 on the basis of forged documents. A
civil suit was also filed by respondent no.2 and that civil suit is pending in the
Civil Court, Katni. She has further submitted that the respondent No.2 also made
an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and a criminal complaint under
Section 190/200 of Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR against petitioners and others.
The trial Court, however without considering the fact that one FIR i.e. vide Crime
No.73/22 was already registered against Vimal Kumar Jain and civil proceedings
are also pending between respondent No.2 and Vimal Kumar Jain directed for
registration of FIR and as such, the FIR got registered.
7. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in respect of sale deed
dated 18.10.2017 and the land belonging to Khasra No.307/5 of Patwari Halka
No.45/2, they have nothing to do with the said plot and they have not played any
role in the said transaction. She has further submitted that a civil suit being Civil
Suit No.302/2023 was filed by one Rajkumar Nayak and Mayan Nagaria for
declaring the sale deed 10.12.1990 as null and void saying that the property
purchased without permission of Collector as required under Section 165(7)(b) of
the Code, 1959. The said civil suit is still pending in the Court.
8. According to counsel for the petitioners, from perusal of the FIR which
is impugned in this petition registered against the petitioners, it can be easily seen
that there is nothing against the petitioners and no allegation has been made
against them. She has submitted that petitioners have not played any role,
therefore, they cannot be subjected to any criminal prosecution because it is purely
a case of civil nature. Civil proceedings and civil suits are already pending in the
Court. As per counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No.2 made several
complaints i.e. from 19.01.2022 to 28.06.2023 and in a complaint dated 23.8.2023,
he has shown different dates of incidents and admitted that there are civil suits
pending between him and Vimal Kumar Jain and just to create pressure, he has
also initiated criminal prosecution and as such, it is claimed that when civil suits
are pending, there was no reason for initiating criminal prosecution. Even
otherwise, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that it is
not a fit case in which criminal prosecution can be initiated. The FIR even does
not disclose any crime committed by the present petitioners and, therefore, the
same requires to be quashed.
9. Despite making appearance, no reply has been filed by the respondents
and they argued the matter and submitted that there is no law which prohibits
criminal prosecution simultaneously when civil litigation is also pending.
10. Shri Sushil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2
has placed reliance upon several orders passed by this Court in which it is held
that civil and criminal prosecution both can go on simultaneously. He has placed
reliance upon a decision passed by the Supreme Court in case of Salimbhai
Hamidbhai Menon Vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel and another passed in
Criminal Appeal No.884/2021 arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 4617 of 2021, an
order passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.26747/2020 -
Gurupreet Singh Vs. State of M.P. and another and M.Cr.C. No. 7431/2020
Sharad Agarwal Vs. State of M.P. and others wherein this Court has observed
that merely because civil ingredients are also involved in the allegations, does not
mean that criminal prosecution cannot be initiated.
11. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
12. Indisputably, the Supreme Court in case of Salimbhai Hamidbhai
Menon (supra) has observed that exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
and Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the FIR only on the
ground that civil dispute is also pending has to be done in a very exceptional
circumstance when Court comes to the conclusion that initiating criminal
prosecution is an abuse of process of law. Similarly in case of Gurupreet Singh
(supra), this Court has held that the High Court merely because the respondent is
trying to impact criminal colour to a civil dispute, power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised but it can be exercised only when no other remedy is
available to the litigant and not in a situation where specific remedy is provided by
the statute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that merely because a
civil dispute is involved and pending and complaint discloses criminal ingredients
also, the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed. It is also observed by the Court
that if FIR prima facie discloses commission of offence then the same cannot be
quashed by the Court.
13. There is no dispute with regard to the settled legal position that only
because civil dispute is pending, criminal prosecution cannot be initiated but at the
same time, law also provides that if a civil dispute is pending and nature of
allegations giving rise to a civil litigation, it cannot be given a shape of criminal
prosecution and in such a circumstance, the Court can exercise the power provided
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing the criminal case. This Court in case of Rahul Agarwal Vs. State of
M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.15169/2023 decided on 07.05.2024, relying
upon several Supreme Court decisions quashed the criminal prosecution.
14. Recently, the Supreme Court in case of Naresh Kumar and another
Vs. The State of Karnataka and another SLP(Crl.) No. 1570 of 2021 decided
by order dated 12.03.2024, relying upon an earlier Supreme Court judgment has
observed as under:-
"6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11
SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be
exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such
criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what
was held:
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly
and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint
discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts
alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are
present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint
disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But
the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a
civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation,
if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened
in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the
criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."
(emphasis supplied)
Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in
Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that
criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of
harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal &
Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it
was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is
given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by
exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
7. Essentially, the present dispute between the parties relates to a breach of
contract. A mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract
prosecution for criminal offence in every case, as held by this Court in
Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2023) 5 SCC 360. Similarly,
dealing with the distinction between the offence of cheating and a mere
breach of contractual obligations, this Court, in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v.
State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293, has held that every breach of contract
would not give rise to the offence of cheating, and it is required to be shown
that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making
the promise.
8. In the case at hand, the dispute between the parties was not only
essentially of a civil nature but in this case the dispute itself stood settled
later as we have already discussed above. We see no criminal element here
and consequently the case here is nothing but an abuse of the process. We
therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court dated
02.12.2020. The criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.113 of 2017
will hereby stand quashed."
15. At the same time, considering the facts of the present case that the
respondent No.2/complainant is making complaints to each and every authority,
approached the revenue authority under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 and the
Tehsildar vide its order dated 08.11.2021 rejected the application of the
respondent No.2 with regard to the same land i.e. Khasra No.307/5, area
admeasuring 0.008 hectares total 1500 sq. meters in which other accused persons
were also party and thereafter he filed a civil suit which is also pending in respect
of the said land and as such, initiating criminal prosecution by making various
complaints to the police and then a complaint filed under under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C., it is clear that this is nothing but an abuse of process of law. From the
contents of FIR, i.e. Annexure P/2, it is also not clear as to how the present
petitioners have been made accused. In the FIR, nowhere disclosed what role and
what type of crime committed by the present petitioners. The contents of FIR itself
make it clear that it is purely a dispute of civil nature and, therefore, civil disputes
have been initiated and civil suits are pending but despite that, respondent no.2
who appears to be habitual in making complaints time and again to the authorities
successfully got the FIR lodged against the petitioners. In the opinion of this
Court, such type of criminal prosecution is a clear abuse of process of law and in
such a case, this Court can exercise the power provided under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has very clearly observed that when civil suits are
pending and nature of dispute is purely of civil nature, that cannot be given a
colour of criminal prosecution and, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to say
that as far as present petitioners are concerned, no crime on their behalf appears to
have been committed in pursuance to the allegations made in the FIR and,
therefore, this Court is of the opinion that exercising power provided under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the FIR lodged against the petitioners can be quashed.
16. The trial Court on a complaint made under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
without considering the facts in appropriate manner and without applying the mind
that the dispute is purely of civil nature, directed the police to make an
investigation and register the FIR. The trial Court has failed to see that the
respondent No.2 submitted five complaints and in every complaint, he has alleged
against different persons and tried to rope new persons whereas in all those
complaints, the cause of action was different. The boundaries mentioned in the
complaints are different and in a complaint dated 28.06.2023 whereby the
petitioners have been roped in the litigation, they have no role in the same. The
complainant very tactfully has not disclosed about the pendency of civil suit in the
said complaint. If the trial Court had considered the facts of the case carefully then
no direction could have been issued for registration of FIR and as such, it can be
easily gathered that the trial Court has not applied its mind but remained entangled
in its own assumptions while considering the actual facts of the case. Conversely,
it is clear that it is in fact a dispute of demarcation of boundaries and that falls
purely within the civil jurisdiction and in criminal prosecution, nothing can be
done and thus it is a clear-cut case of abuse of process of law and as such, the
prosecution is wholly malicious.
17. Ex consequentia, this petition is allowed. The FIR registered against the
petitioners vide FIR No. 0846/2023 Police Station Kuthla, District Katni for the
offence under Sections 201, 207, 209, 214, 120-B, 414, 416, 419, 420, 464, 467,
468, 471, 474, 482 and 489 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable and is
hereby quashed. It is further made clear that all further proceedings based upon the
said FIR against the present petitioners shall also stand quashed.
18. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed. No costs.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
SATYA SAI RAO
2025.02.28 10:45:20
+05'30'
