Madhya Pradesh High Court
Fenny Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18564
1 WP-26040-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 18th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 26040 of 2025
FENNY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Kushal Goyal appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
ORDER
Heard.
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have challenged the notices dated 27.08.2024 and
30.05.2025 issued by respondent No.4 whereby they have been directed to
record their statements and to produce documents.
02. From a perusal of the impugned notices, it is observed that a
complaint has been made against the petitioners as regards not executing sale
deed in respect of a plot despite having received the entire payment. By the
notices, the petitioners have only been directed to record their statements and
to produce the documents and nothing further. It cannot be said that by way
of the said notices, any criminal prosecution has been launched against the
petitioners. No adverse order has been passed against them. On the contrary,
they have been only called to record their statements and produce
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18564
2 WP-26040-2025
documents. There is no reason for the petitioners to apprehend that after
recording of their statements and perusal of the documents, action would
certainly be taken against them.
03. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out
orders dated 14.02.2025 and 24.02.2025 passed in W.P. No.41310/2024 but
those orders are in respect of project named "Denmark City" and not
"Princess Estate Colony". The petitioners are associated with Princess Estate
and not with Denmark City hence the said orders are not of any significance.
04. Though a demarcation report dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P/5) has
been pointed out but the same for the present is of no consequence since
presently only show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners. The
demarcation report would be a matter on merits. Since no criminal
prosecution as such has been launched against them, the judgment in the case
o f Sunil Kumar Garg and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others (W.P.
No.27805/2023) decided on 27.02.2025 is of no avail to the petitioners.
05. Thus, I do not deem it to be a fit case for interfering in exercise of
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is found to
be devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
