Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajveer Arya Bansal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41553 of 2022
RAJVEER ARYA BANSAL AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
APPERANCE
Shri V.K. Bhardwaj - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Vijay Dutta
Sharma, Surendra Singh Dhakad and Shri Rohit Batham, learned
counsel for the applicants.
Shri Dinesh Savita - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla - Advocate alongwith Shri Kabir
Quraishi - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 16/09/2025
Delivered on : 31/10/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present application, under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed
by the applicants No.1 to 4, namely, Rajveer Arya Bansal, Manoj
Bansal, Ashok Bansal and Pankaj Kumar Bansal respectively, seeking
quashment of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 255 of 2022 registered at Police
Station Hazira, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B and 193 of Indian Penal Code and further proceedings
arising out of the said FIR.
FACTS
Short facts as per prosecution are that respondent
No.2/complainant's husband, late Rajiv Bansal, who was the sole owner
of multiple immovable properties in Gwalior, including the land
situated at Hazira Chowk, a factory at Kalyanpura, agricultural land,
and a residential house near Bijli Ghar, Tansen Road, was murdered on
10.04.2013 at the Kalyanpura factory premises. After his death, the
complainant and her three children became his lawful heirs. This
succession has been duly recorded with the relevant revenue authorities.
In the year 2019, the complainant and her three children executed
transfer deeds (benaamas) of a large portion of Kalyanpura, Malpura
and Hajira Chowk properties situated at Gwalior in favour of Girraj
Bansal and others. In those transactions, the complainant's mother-in-
law, Mrs. Swadesh Bansal, and father-in-law, Shri Rajveer Arya Bansal
(applicant No.1) also executed separate transfer deeds and accepted that
the complainant and her three children were the legal heirs of late Rajiv
Bansal, thus, entitled as successors to the properties left by him. After
execution of those transfer deeds, a number of properties remained in
the industrial area, and one residential house near Bijli Ghar on Tansen
Road continued to remain in the possession of the complainant and her
children.
To dispossess the complainant from these remaining properties, it
was alleged that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and both brothers-in-
law, namely, Sanjeev Kumar Bansal and Manoj Kumar Bansal
(applicant No.2) [sons of late Rajveer Arya Bansal], all residents of a
house situated in front of Bijli Ghar, Tansen Road conspired together.
They allegedly, with a common intention and in furtherance of the
conspiracy, fabricated a false and forged Will purportedly of late Rajiv
Bansal, placing the estate in the name of his paternal uncle (taau's son),
namely, Pankaj Kumar Bansal (applicant No.4) and Ashok Kumar
Bansal (applicant No.3) [sons of late Shankarlal Bansal]. The forged
Will was back-dated as 13.03.2013, and the complainant states that it
was prepared after the death of Rajiv Bansal (who died on 10.04.2013)
and his age at the time of death was about 44 years. The complainant
further alleges that a notary/advocate colluded in preparing this
fake/forged Will. It was further alleged that the notary/advocate, and the
two witnesses, namely, Pankaj Kumar (applicant No.4) and Ashok
Kumar Bansal (applicant No.3), falsely stated that they obtained
signatures of Rajiv Bansal on the Will in their presence whereas, in
truth, this was done after his death and as part of a planned deception.
Thereafter, the accused Manoj Bansal (applicant No.2) and his father
Shri Rajveer Arya Bansal (applicant No.1), along with his mother Mrs.
Swadesh Bansal and brother-in-law Sanjeev Bansal, began to threaten
the complainant. They allegedly told her that they had arranged for the
death of her husband (i.e., "we had him killed"), and next would be her
turn and they demanded that if she wanted the safety and well-being of
herself and her children, she must relinquish her rights in favour of their
property in Mandideep, Raisen. The accused threatened that otherwise,
by relying on the forged Will, they would appropriate all the
complainant's properties situated at Gwalior and leave the complainant
and her children destitute. On the basis of such allegation, alleged crime
was registered against the applicants.
ARGUMENTS
Shri V.K. Bhardwaj - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Vijay Dutta
Sharma, Surendra Singh Dhakad and Shri Rohit Batham, learned
counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1/Rajveer Arya
Bansal, is father-in-law, applicant No.2/Manoj Bansal is Brother in Law
(devar), applicant No.3/Ashok Bansal is cousin brother-in-law (cousin
devar) and applicant No.4/Pankaj Kumar Bansal is cousin brother-in-aw
of the complainant and the instant FIR registered against them arose out
of a family dispute concerning the alleged Will dated 13.03.2013 of the
late Rajiv Bansal. The Respondent No.2, Mrs. Madhavi Bansal, being
the widow and legal heir of the deceased, had approached the Civil
Court asserting her rights under the said Will. Subsequently, disputes
over the alleged Will and ownership of the property led to the
registration of the FIR.
It was further submitted that the offences alleged under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 193 of the Indian Penal Code require
specific and concrete acts of cheating, forgery, conspiracy and use of
forged documents. Even if the FIR is read as it stands, no ingredients of
these offences are made out. The entire controversy essentially relates to
inheritance of immovable property, which is a matter for adjudication
before a civil court. Criminal prosecution in this background is nothing
but an abuse of process of law.
It was further submitted that admittedly in the year 2019, the
applicants themselves executed transfer deeds and unequivocally
acknowledged that the complainant and her children are the lawful heirs
of late Rajiv Bansal. Having already accepted their status as successors
and transferred portions of the property, the allegation that a forged Will
of 2013 was fabricated in favour of third parties is not only inconsistent
but also inherently improbable. There is further an inordinate delay in
lodging the FIR, as the Will is alleged to be of March 2013, whereas the
FIR was lodged only in the year 2022, almost nine years later. No
satisfactory explanation has been offered for such a long delay. This
unexplained lapse alone indicates that the FIR is an afterthought and
motivated by ulterior considerations.
It was further submitted that the complainant has further tried to
bolster her case by alleging that the applicants admitted to having
arranged the murder of her husband and threatened her thereafter. These
sweeping and bald allegations are not supported by any
contemporaneous complaint or material. Such vague averments are
clearly an attempt to give criminal colour to a civil dispute and to
prejudice the applicants in the eyes of the law. The settled position of
law, as reiterated by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 33, is that civil disputes
relating to property rights and succession should not be permitted to be
dressed up as criminal cases. The present prosecution, if allowed to
continue, would result in nothing but harassment of the applicants and a
gross abuse of the process of law.
It was further submitted that this Court in MCRC No. 28262/2022
& MCRC No. 28258/2022, vide order dated 17.06.2022, directed the
parties to undergo mediation to resolve the dispute amicably. Senior
Advocate Shri N.K. Gupta was appointed as the mediator. During the
mediation process, with the guidance of a respected religious guru, the
parties were able to reconcile their differences, and an amicable
settlement was reached.
It is also relevant to submit that the prosecution has not produced
any FSL report to substantiate the allegation of forgery. In the absence
of any expert opinion establishing that the signatures or handwriting on
the Will are forged, the very basis of the allegations remains
uncorroborated and speculative, so also even as per the complainant's
version, the Will is said to benefit certain third parties and the present
applicants are not the beneficiaries of the alleged forged Will, and hence
no motive or unlawful gain can be attributed to them.
It was further submitted that although the bail applications of the
applicants were ultimately rejected, the guidance of this Court
facilitated reconciliation between the parties. The matter also reached
the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6689/2022 [Ashok
Kumar Bansal & Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) and vide order
dated 12.08.2022, the Apex recorded that the applicants had agreed to
give quietus to the matter and would not rely on the alleged Will dated
13.03.2013. The Apex Court, while not interfering with the impugned
judgment, recognized the parties' intention to amicably resolve the
dispute. The Apex Court further clarified that if the applicants
surrendered within two weeks from 12.08.2022 and applied for bail,
their applications would be considered on merits without being
influenced by any observation made in the previous orders/judgments.
It was further submitted that the settlement reached between the
parties was comprehensive and addressed all civil, financial, and
personal disputes. The terms included:
i. Handover of personal and financial Documents: All
personal and financial documents of Madhavi Bansal,
Nidhi, Garvika, Tanmay, and late Shri Rajiv Bansal,
including ID cards, bank documents, and ITRs, shall be
handed over to the respondent No.2.
ii. Invalidation of signed papers and cheques: Any
cheques or blank papers signed by the respondent No.2 or
her children shall be returned and rendered invalid.
iii. Closure of joint bank accounts: All joint bank
accounts held with any family member shall be closed, and
remaining balances transferred to the respondent No.2.
iv. Return of belongings: All belongings from
Gwalior home, Mandideep home, and Pioneer Pollution
Factory shall be returned to the Respondent.
v. Liabilities during directorship: Any liabilities
arising during the directorship tenure of Madhavi Barisal
shall be borne by the applicants.
vi. Non-use of signed documents: No document
signed by the Respondent shall be used by the applicants,
and any misuse shall be treated as null and void.
vii. Execution of settlement deed: The parties have
executed a formal settlement deed (Annexure D), codifying
the terms and ensuring enforceability of the agreement.
It was further submitted that the disputes underlying the FIR are
predominantly civil in nature, arising from family property, Will
enforcement, and financial matters. In that context, the Apex Court in
the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10SCC 303 has held that
criminal cases with predominantly civil or family dispute elements may
be quashed where the parties have amicably settled their disputes.
Similarly, in the matter of Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
reported in (2021) 9 JT 478, it was held that even for non-
compoundable offences, the High Court may exercise its powers under
Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the
ends of justice, provided there is a full and voluntary settlement
between the parties. The settlement ensures that the respondent's rights,
financial and personal, are fully protected, and no further disputes are
expected.
Apart from the aforesaid submissions, it was also submitted that
till 03.01.2025, an amount of Rs.3,39,38,720/- was deposited by the
applicants before the trial Court and still they are ready and willing to
the alienate the plot situated at Mandideep, Raisen, but respondent No.2
is not appearing before the Court and for selling of plot, consent of
respondent No.2 is needed and agreement to the aforesaid is also
annexed.
It was further submitted that the underlying dispute of the instant
FIR is predominantly civil/family in nature, arising from property and
inheritance issues. The parties have fully settled their differences
through a formal settlement deed.
Further, Section 320 of CrPC empowers the parties to compound
certain offences with the consent of the victim, thereby extinguishing
the criminal liability. Although some offences in the present case are
non-compoundable, Courts have repeatedly recognized that where the
criminal dispute arises from a civil/family transaction or private wrong,
an amicable settlement is relevant for exercising inherent powers under
Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of law.
While placing reliance on the judgment of Jhangtoo Barai &
Another v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Allahabad 409 (Para 3), it was submitted
that compromise between parties in matters arising from private
transactions can extinguish criminal liability where the wrong is
primarily personal or civil in nature.
Further, while placing reliance on the judgment of Biswabahan
Das v. Gopen Chandra Hazarika & Others, AIR 1976 SC 895 (Paras 4,
6), it was submitted that where offences arise out of disputes over
property or civil transactions, settlement between parties is a material
consideration in deciding whether continuation of criminal proceedings
is necessary.
Further, while placing reliance on the judgment of State of
Rajasthan v. Jaswant Singh Saluja, 1973 CRLJ 1262 (Para 7) it was
submitted that compromise and reconciliation between parties can be
taken into account while considering quashing of proceedings where the
offences have predominantly civil characteristics.
Further, while placing reliance on the judgment of K. Jugaram v.
K. Satyavathi & Others, 1981 CRI.L.J. NOC 1801 (AP), it was
submitted that an amicable settlement between parties can relieve
accused from criminal liability in offences arising from family or
property disputes.
Further, while placing reliance on the judgment of S.K. Kakkar &
Another v. Yaswant Singh & Another, 1985 Legal Eagle (Raj.) 243 /
1985(1) WLN 601 (Para 8), it was submitted that where disputes
involve private/civil matters and compromise is reached, courts can
exercise discretion to quash criminal proceedings to secure ends of
justice.
Further, while placing reliance on the judgment of Sanjit Datta v.
State of Tripura & Another, 2007 (3) SCC (Cri.) 172, it was submitted
that amicable settlements in disputes having civil flavor may be
sufficient ground to quash FIRs, provided there is no threat to public
order or larger societal interest.
Further, while placing reliance on the judgment of B.V. Seshaiah /
B. Vamsi Krishna v. State of Telangana & Another, 2023 Live Law (SC)
75 (Paras 8-11), it was submitted that criminal proceedings arising from
private disputes can be quashed where the parties have fully settled the
matter and the possibility of conviction is remote, and continuation of
proceedings would amount to oppression.
Harping upon the fact, the prosecution has not produced any FSL
report to prove the allegation of forgery, it was submitted that in the
matter of Mariam Fasihuddin & Another v. State by Adugodi Police
Station & Another, 2024 INSC 49 [Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2024
arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2877 of 2021], the Apex Court has held that
reliance solely on a private laboratory's report, when the State FSL
report is inconclusive, is "frail, unreliable, unsafe, untrustworthy and
imprudent" (Para 23). In the present case, with no FSL report at all, the
allegation of forgery lacks evidentiary foundation.
In the same decision, the Apex Court has emphasized that under Section
173(8) CrPC, a supplementary chargesheet must be based on fresh
material unearthed in further investigation, and not merely a rehash of
earlier evidence (Paras 24-25). The Court further noted that the
supplementary chargesheet filed without any new evidence could not be
sustained (Para 26). In the instant case, no new material has been
brought on record to substantiate the allegations, and hence the
continuation of proceedings is wholly unwarranted.
In Para 21 of Mariam Fasihuddin (supra), the Apex Court has
reiterated that mere allegations of forgery or cheating are insufficient
unless all the ingredients of the offences are prima facie made out. Here,
no inducement, no wrongful gain, and no clear act of forgery
attributable to the applicants has been alleged, especially since they are
not beneficiaries of the alleged Will.
Apart from the aforesaid submissions, it was also submitted that
before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 6689
of 2022 [Ashok Kumar Bansal & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh],
the applicants had categorically undertaken that they wished to give
quietus to the matter, would not rely on the alleged Will dated
13.03.2013, and is ready and willing to settle all disputes with
respondent No.2. It was recorded by the Apex Court that the applicants
had agreed not to claim any rights on the basis of the said Will and that,
upon surrender, their bail applications would be considered on merits. It
was further submitted that the applicants are treating the same
undertaking before this Court as well and they shall not rely upon or use
the alleged Will dated 13.03.2013 in any civil or criminal proceedings,
and they also undertaken to withdraw the civil suit filed on the basis of
the said Will. It was thus contended that this consistent conduct
demonstrates the applicants' bona fide intention to end the dispute
permanently and to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the
complainant or her children, therefore, continuation of the criminal
proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to
harassment of the applicants.
In light of the above submissions, it was prayed that the present
application be allowed and the alleged FIR be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the
counsel for the complainant had opposed the application and submitted
that Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as
learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2/complainant have
opposed the present application and submitted that the case at hand
arises from sustained and deliberate acts of cheating, forgery, criminal
conspiracy, and financial exploitation of a widow and her minor
children, following the murder of her husband, late Shri Rajeev Bansal,
who was the co-founder of the Bansal Group of Companies. It was
urged that the offences alleged are not of a private or civil nature but
constitute grave and cognizable acts which strike at the very root of
public confidence in corporate and property transactions.
It was pointed out that Shri Rajeev Bansal was murdered on
10.04.2013 and, shockingly, on the very same day, the son of applicant
no.1 was appointed as Director in the company founded by the
deceased. Merely twenty-eight days prior to this incident, a forged Will
dated 13.03.2013 was manufactured to confer unlawful benefit upon the
applicants, even though the deceased was only forty-four years of age
and in good health. The timing of the forged Will, immediately
preceding the murder, and the subsequent appointment of the
applicant's son as Director clearly indicate a premeditated and
coordinated conspiracy to usurp the estate of the deceased.
It was further submitted that the prosecution has collected strong
expert evidence establishing forgery. The State Examiner of Questioned
Documents, Government of Madhya Pradesh, after scientific analysis,
has confirmed that the signatures of late Shri Rajeev Bansal on the
alleged Will dated 13.03.2013 are forged. This finding, contained in the
Examiner's report dated 29.09.2023, forms part of the case diary and
constitutes cogent prima facie evidence against the applicants. The
report categorically disproves the authenticity of the Will relied upon by
the applicants and establishes that it was fabricated after the death of the
testator, thereby attracting the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471
and 120-B IPC.
It was further submitted that the sequence of events and the
applicants' subsequent conduct reveal a well-planned and continuing
criminal conspiracy. The forged Will was created merely twenty-eight
days before the murder; on the date of the murder, the son of applicant
no.1 was inducted as Director; and immediately thereafter, attempts
were made to take control over the deceased's assets and companies by
producing the forged Will and manipulating official records. Such
circumstances, it was contended, cannot be viewed as a mere family
dispute but reflect a calculated scheme of forgery, deceit, and financial
domination.
It was further submitted that the so-called compromise or
settlement deed, heavily relied upon by the applicants, cannot form the
basis for quashment of criminal proceedings. The said compromise is
neither voluntary nor fair, but was procured through fraud, suppression,
coercion and financial duress. The complainant, being a widow with
dependent children, was compelled to sign the purported settlement
under extreme economic and emotional pressure. The document itself is
vague, one-sided and grossly undervalues assets exceeding fifty crores,
thereby revealing its tainted nature. Furthermore, the applicants have
themselves defaulted in performance of the alleged settlement. Only a
partial payment of ₹1,00,27,534/- was deposited on 24.08.2022, while
the balance amount remains unpaid. The Mandideep property, which
was to be transferred in favour of respondent no.2, has not been
transferred, and other promised obligations remain unfulfilled. The
respondent has even expressed her willingness to return the partial
amount received, which clearly demonstrates that the so-called
compromise was nothing but a sham device intended to frustrate the
ongoing criminal proceedings.
It was further submitted that the misconduct of the applicants
extends far beyond the forged Will. They fabricated resignation letters
purportedly bearing the signatures of the complainant in order to
unlawfully remove her as Director and shareholder of the companies
established by her late husband. They also forged a Power of Attorney
in the name of her minor son without any lawful guardianship rights,
misused company documents to divert funds and assets into related
entities controlled by them, and circulated defamatory and derogatory
material branding her as ''चररित्रहहीन औरि ललालचची बहह'' to defame and
emotionally harass her into submission. Such acts of sustained fraud,
intimidation, and humiliation are clearly indicative of a deliberate
pattern of criminal conduct and cannot be brushed aside as a private
dispute.
It was further submitted that the anticipatory bail applications of
the present applicants have already been rejected by both this Court and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which itself underscores the gravity of the
allegations and the existence of prima facie material against them. Their
repeated attempts to cloak the matter as a family settlement and to
invoke the inherent powers of this Court are nothing but misuse of
process.
It was further submitted that the inherent power under Section
482 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly
and only in cases where the allegations do not disclose any cognizable
offence. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Cr.A. No. 1489/2012),
wherein it has been held that in cases involving grave and heinous
offences such as forgery, fraud, and conspiracy, which have wide social
and moral ramifications, the High Court should refrain from quashing
criminal proceedings merely on the ground of compromise. It was
argued that the offences alleged in the present case strike at the integrity
of financial and corporate governance, affect public faith in legal
documents and institutions, and amount to offences against society at
large. Permitting quashment on the basis of a tainted and coercive
settlement would set a dangerous precedent allowing perpetrators of
white-collar crime to escape accountability by manufacturing sham
compromises.
In light of the foregoing submissions, it was prayed that the
present application be dismissed as devoid of merit, as the FIR discloses
serious and cognizable offences supported by forensic and documentary
evidence, and the continuation of investigation and trial is necessary to
unearth the full extent of the conspiracy and to secure justice for the
widow and her minor children.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants
and learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel
for respondent no.2/complainant, and upon careful perusal of the
material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view as
follows:-
The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the controversy arises
out of a forged Will dated 13.03.2013, purportedly executed by late Shri
Rajeev Bansal, who was murdered on 10.04.2013. The record further
discloses that this Will was manufactured after his death and projected
as a genuine testamentary document to usurp valuable immovable
properties and business interests belonging to the deceased. The report
of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of
Madhya Pradesh, dated 29.09.2023, categorically confirms that the
signatures of late Shri Rajeev Bansal appearing on the alleged Will are
forged. The said expert opinion, forming part of the case diary,
constitutes strong prima facie material demonstrating that the document
was fabricated and the applicants conspired to rely upon it for unlawful
gain.
The circumstances of the case execution of the forged Will merely
twenty-eight days before the murder, appointment of applicant no.1's
son as Director on the very day of the murder, and the subsequent
manipulation of corporate and property records clearly point to a
premeditated criminal conspiracy. The offences alleged, punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 193 of the Indian Penal
Code, are grave, cognizable and non-compoundable in nature. These
acts cannot be trivialized, as mere family or civil disputes, since they
involve deliberate fabrication of evidence, forgery of public documents
and fraudulent deprivation of property, all of which constitute offences
against society and the administration of justice.
As regards the undertakings given by the applicants before the
Apex Court, and reiterated before this Court, that they would not rely
upon the alleged Will and would withdraw the civil suit based thereon,
this Court observes that such undertakings, though recorded, do not
efface the criminality attached to the acts already committed. The fact
that the applicants have now expressed their willingness to abandon the
forged Will cannot erase the prima facie evidence of forgery, conspiracy
and fabrication that has already come to light. Therefore, such
undertakings or assurances are of no relevance in determining whether
cognizable offences are made out. The criminal law must take its own
course.
The plea of amicable settlement set up by the applicants does not
inspire confidence, as the alleged compromise deed appears neither
voluntary nor bona fide, having been executed under economic and
emotional duress. The terms of settlement are vague, one-sided and
grossly undervalue assets of substantial worth. Further, the applicants
have failed to perform their own obligations under the alleged
compromise by not transferring the Mandideep property and by
depositing only a fraction of the agreed consideration. The complainant
has even expressed her willingness to refund the partial amount
received, which effectively negates the claim of genuine reconciliation.
In such circumstances, this Court cannot treat the compromise as a
legitimate foundation for quashing of criminal proceedings.
The reliance placed by the applicants on judicial precedents such
as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra); Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
(supra); Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra); Biswabahan
Das v. Gopen Chandra Hazarika (supra); and various other High Court
rulings, is misplaced. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Supreme Court
merely enumerated illustrative categories where quashment may be
justified if the complaint, even taken at face value, discloses no offence.
In the present case, the FIR and supporting material clearly disclose
cognizable offences, thus, excluding its applicability. In Gian Singh
(supra) and Ramgopal (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the
inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash
criminal proceedings only in cases of private or personal disputes
having predominantly civil character, where the parties have voluntarily
settled the matter and continuation of the case would serve no public
purpose. However, the same decisions also caution that such power
cannot be exercised where the offences are serious, involve forgery,
fraud or conspiracy, and have an adverse impact on public confidence in
law and justice. The present matter, involving fabrication of a forged
Will and concerted attempts to deprive a widow and her minor children
of their lawful property, clearly falls within the latter category.
Likewise, the older decisions relied upon by the applicants, such
as Jhangtoo Barai v. Emperor (supra), State of Rajasthan v. Jaswant
Singh Saluja (supra), K. Jugaram v. K. Satyavathi (supra) and S.K.
Kakkar v. Yaswant Singh (supra), pertain to offences of purely private
nature or compoundable character, and are, therefore, distinguishable.
None of them apply to the present facts where serious, non-
compoundable offences involving forgery of testamentary instruments
and criminal conspiracy are alleged.
The contention regarding delay in lodging the FIR is also without
merit, as the complainant has satisfactorily explained that the forgery
came to light much later, after sustained acts of intimidation,
concealment, and manipulation of documents by the accused. Delay, in
cases of deception and forgery, especially where the victim is a widow
confronting a powerful family nexus, cannot by itself invalidate the
prosecution.
It is trite that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to
be exercised sparingly and with great caution, only to prevent manifest
injustice or abuse of process. Where serious allegations supported by
prima facie evidence exist, quashment at the threshold would amount to
stifling a legitimate prosecution. The material on record in the present
case discloses specific, grave and substantiated allegations which
warrant full investigation and adjudication at trial. This Court, therefore,
finds no reason to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to interdict the process
of law.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the allegations contained in
FIR No.255 of 2022 registered at Police Station Hazira, District
Gwalior, and the material collected during investigation, disclose prima
facie commission of cognizable offences by the applicants. The
undertaking given by the applicants to not rely upon the Will and to
withdraw the civil suit is of no consequence, as the offences of forgery
and conspiracy are independent of any subsequent promise or
settlement. The plea of settlement and reliance on civil proceedings are
insufficient to obliterate criminal liability in such circumstances. The
judgments cited on behalf of the applicants are distinguishable on facts
and principles.
Consequently, the application filed by applicants no.1 to 4 -- Shri
Rajveer Arya Bansal, Shri Manoj Bansal, Shri Ashok Bansal and Shri
Pankaj Kumar Bansal -- under Section 482 CrPC stands dismissed as
being devoid of merit and does not warrant interference in exercise of
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
Before parting with the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to
observe that the allegations involved are of grave nature, involving
forgery of a testamentary document, criminal conspiracy and economic
exploitation of a widow and her minor children. The learned Trial Court
is, therefore, directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously and in
accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein,
which are confined to the adjudication of this application under Section
482 CrPC. Both parties are directed to extend full cooperation to ensure
early disposal of the proceedings so that justice may not be delayed.
With the aforesaid observation, the present application is
dismissed and disposed of.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
pwn*
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a
49f265f02d9d593f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA436EA65E26164
BEEED89153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2025.11.01 12:33:20 +05'30'
