Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish vs Prahlad on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30335
1 MCRC-21033-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 25th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21033 of 2018
JAGDISH AND OTHERS
Versus
PRAHLAD
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Jha - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Hardayesh Kumar Shukla- Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
being aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal Revision No.95/2016 thereby
dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioners and order dated
12.05.2015 passed in Criminal Revision, No.15/2014 passed by SDM, Pohri
District Shivpuri, whereby application filed under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.
has been allowed.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the plot situated at survey
No. 833 bearing plot No.49 rakwaa 4050 SQ at Village Kalamath Distt
Shivpuri is of absolute ownership of the petitioner No.2. The said land was
granted on Patta to uncle of the petitioner No.2 Ashok by the concerned
Gram Panchayat. The uncle of petitioner No.2 has executed a will in favor of
the petitioner No.2 on 25.11.2006. The said uncle expired on 13.11.2007,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30335
2 MCRC-21033-2018
therefore, the said land, on the basis of the will, became the absolute property
of the petitioner No.2. The Gram Panchayat also on the basis of the said will
mutated his name in favor of the petitioner by passing a resolution dated
18.04.2011 and since, the petitioner No.2 is residing on the said land with his
family.
The respondent on the basis of forged documents, fled an application
under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M. Pohri District Shivpuri.
The said land does not belong to respondent in any manner. Still, with the
help of forged documents, he filed the aforesaid application. The Gram
Panchayat also has never passed any resolution in favor of respondent.
After receiving notice of the application Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.,
petitioner issued legal notices to the Tehsildar and Secretary of the Gram
Panchayat. In reply, the Tehsildar and Secretary of the Panchayat, replied
that neither any certificate has been issued in favor of the respondent nor any
resolution has been passed in this regard thereby mutating the name of
respondent on the land in question.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a detailed reply to the application under
Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. before the SDM. Thereafter, the case was fixed
for evidence. The respondent's side did not submit any evidence in their
favour. On the other hand the, petitioner No.2 produced the evidence in
support of his claim and also produced a witness namely- Netram. In spite of
that, the SDM. vide order dated 12.05.2015, allowed the application of
respondent with direction not to dispossess the respondent from the disputed
land.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30335
3 MCRC-21033-2018
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioners filed a revision before
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. The revisional court also failed
to consider the fact that the impugned order passed by the SDM is contrary
to the law. Respondent is encroacher over the disputed land that belongs to
petitioners and respondent has not legal right in his favour. Hence, this
petition may be allowed and quash the impugned order dated 22.02.2016
(Annexure P/13) passed in Criminal Revision No. 95/2015 and order dated
12.05.2015 (Annexure P/11) passed in Criminal case No. 15/2014.
Learned counsel for respondent opposed the prayer and supported the
impugned judgments.
Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by revisional court,
this court finds that the revisional court in its para-9 has specifically held
that:-
यहां उ लेखनीय होगा क करण म
ितपुनर णकता क ओर से यवहार
यायाधीश वग-2 पोहर जला िशवपुर के सम
तुत यवहार वाद मांक 03ए/2012 म हुए
िनणय दनांक 07-10-2013, क स य ित भी
तुत क गयी है , जससे यह कट है क उसी
भूिम के संबंध म उ िस वल यायालय
ारा पुनर णकता के अिधकार का िनधारण
कया जा चुका है , जस िनणय व आ ाि के
ितकूल कोई त य प र थित अिभलेख पर
पुनर णकतागण क ओर से तुत नह ं क
गयी है । उ सम त त य प र थित से यह
कट है क करण मे ववा दत वषयव तु के
सं ब ध मे पुनर णकता के व स म
िस वल यायालय ारा आदे श दया जा चुका है
जसमे ितपुनर णकता हलाद प कार भी
नह ं रहा है ।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30335
4 MCRC-21033-2018
In this case the Sessions Court has passed a self-contained, speaking
and reasoned order and has specifically mentioned that the rights of the
present petitioner/revisionist therein, have already been decided in the civil
suit.
Hence, in the light of the aforesaid, this petition under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. against the order passed in the proceedings of application under
Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However,
petitioner is at liberty to avail his alternative remedy as available to him
under the civil suit.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
