[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amribai vs Laljiram on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059
1 MCRC-32233-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32233 of 2018
AMRIBAI AND OTHERS
Versus
LALJIRAM
Appearance:
Shri Nilesh Dave - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Nitin Singh Bhati - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.is filed assailing the order dated
11.05.2018 passed in Cr.R. No. 87/2017 by the Sessions Judge, Rajgarh(Biaora)
by which the order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Khilchipur Distt. Rajgarh in Cr. Case No. 0/2017 was partially modified and the
trial Court was directed to take the cognizance u/S 420 of IPC against the
petitioners. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had declined to take
cognizance against the petitioners of offence punishable u/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 406,
120, 471 r/W 34 of IPC on complaint of petitioner vide order dated 08.08.2017.
2. The exposition of facts, giving rise to the present petition, is as under:
A. The respondent Laljiram filed a Civil Suit which was decided in his
favour by the Civil Judge, Khilchipur vide judgment dated 30.11.2016 in
Civil Suit No. 15A/2016 declaring the Laljiram to be the owner of the
property and permanent injunction was also granted in his favour. Ambri
Bai (petitioner no. 1) had subsequently executed sale deeds on 02.05.2017
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059
2 MCRC-32233-2018
and 01.06.2017 comprising same property in favor of her son,
Bansilal(petitioner no.2). Shrilal and Onkar, despite knowledge about
passing of judgment in favour of Laljiram, signed the sale deeds as
witnesses.
B. The respondent - Laljiram submitted a written complaint on
28.06.2017 to the SHO, Outpost Papdel, P.S. Bhojpur & Rajgarh for
offence punishable u/Ss 420, 467, 468, 406, 120-B, 471 and 34 of IPC
inter-alia alleging fraudulent transaction between Ambri Bai, Bansilal,
Shrilal and Onkar.
C. Laljiram filed private complaint before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Khilchipur Distt. Rajgarh. The statement of Laljiram
was recorded u/S. 200 of Cr.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
dismissed the complaint holding that the dispute is civil in nature. Laljiram
submitted criminal revision before the Court of Sessions, Distt. Rajgarh.
Learned Sessions Judge, Rajgarh partly allowed the criminal revision vide
order dated 11.02.2018 and directed the trial Court to proceed with the
complaint..
3. The impugned order is assailed on the following grounds:
i. The trial Court ignored the material facts and circumstances available on
record.
ii. The Revisional Court i.e. the learned Sessions Judge, Distt. Rajgarh
committed error in directing cognizance of offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC against petitioners, as the offence is also not made
out from the material available on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059
3 MCRC-32233-2018
iii. The revisional Court has no jurisdiction to direct cognizance of offence.
On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the
revisional Court be set aside.
4. Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5 . The trial Court considered the statement of Laljiram recorded u/S 200 of
Cr.P.C. and the documents to conclude that the sale deed is ' void ab initio '. It
does not extinguish or create any title in favour of anyone. The Magistrate relying
on the law laid down in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC
751 concluded that the offence punishable u/S 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is
not prima-facie made out as the sale deed was not executed by impersonating
Ambri Bai. Further, in absence of any entrustment, the offence punishable u/S 406
of IPC is also not made out. The dispute is civil in nature.
6. Learned revisional Court in para 8 and 9 of the impugned order considered
the validity and propriety of the order of learned Magistrate and concluded that
although this sale deed cannot be said to be forged document, the offence of
cheating is prima-facie made out against - Ambri Bai, Shrilal and Onkar. The trial
Court should have taken cognizance of offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC. Thus, the trial Court has committed serious legal error.
7. The Sessions Court allowed the revision petition and directed the
subordinate Court to proceed with the complaint accordingly. (para 11 of the
impugned order)
8. Section 397 read with Section 398 CrPC provide for the scope of criminal
revision as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059
4 MCRC-32233-2018
"397. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision.--
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of
any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local
jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to
the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court, and may, when calling for
such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if
the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond
pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.--All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether
exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the
Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398.
398. Power to order inquiry.--
On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the
Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the
Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may
himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any
complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of Section
204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged:
Provided that no court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the
case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an
opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made."
9. The Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Rajoriya v. Jagat Narain Thapak ,
reported in (2018) 17 SCC 234 , observed as under:
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal of criminal complaint, the appellant
approached the Additional District and Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred as "the
Sessions Court", for brevity) in Criminal Revision No. 242 of 2012. The Sessions
Court, by the order dated 7-12-2012, held that the complainant belonged to Jatav
community which is a Scheduled Caste. Further the Sessions Court observed that the
facts narrated portray that Respondent 1 in conspiracy with others had transferred the
land belonging to the appellant in an illegal manner. Thereafter, concluded that the
lower court did not appreciate the facts, as well as the law, in a proper manner and
remanded the case in the following manner:
This revision is allowed and order dated 21-4-2012 passed by Court is set
aside and case is remanded back with a direction that if necessary after a
further enquiry keeping in view the findings given in this order, proper order
be passed with regard to registration of complaint and to summon the
respondents and for that directed the parties to remain present before the
court below on 20-12-2012.(emphasis supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059
5 MCRC-32233-2018
6. On remand of the case, the Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 23-1-2013, while
taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120-B IPC
and Section 3(1)(iv) of the SC/ST Act, registered the complaint as Criminal Case
No. 1576 of 2013 and on 23-2-2013, the learned Magistrate noted as under--
... the court is required to prima facie decide question of initiating proceeding
arises or not. It is pertinent that in this case learned Revisional Court has
prima facie already found sufficient ground for initiating proceeding against
non-applicants.(emphasis supplied)
13. The extent of the revisionary powers, inter alia, is provided under Section 399
read with Section 401 CrPC. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that Section
398 has to be read along with other sections which are equally applicable to the
revision petitions filed before the Sessions Court. Section 398 only deals with a
distinct power to direct further inquiry, whereas Section 397 read with Section 399
and Section 401 confers power on the revisionary authority to examine correctness,
legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order. The powers of the revisionary
court have to be cumulatively understood in consonance with Sections 398, 399 and
401 CrPC.
14. We may note that the High Court, in the impugned judgment, came to an
erroneous conclusion that the Sessions Court had itself taken cognizance of the
matter which may be reproduced as under:
"8. On bare perusal of this provision it is clear that the impugned order
cannot be passed under Section 398 of the Code. The word "may direct" has
been used by the legislation in this provision. It gives wide discretion to the
court to order further enquiry. The Sessions Court has no power to take
cognizance of the offence, assessed the offence and reach its own conclusion
whether there is ground for proceeding with complaint or not and further to
direct a Magistrate with regard to registration of a complaint on finding a
prima facie case."(emphasis supplied)
15. On a perusal of the Sessions Court judgment (quoted supra), we are of the
opinion that the Sessions Court did not pass an order taking cognizance. The
Sessions Court order should have been construed only as a remand order for further
enquiry. The observations made by the Sessions Court were only justification for a
remand and the same did not amount to taking cognizance. In view of the above, the
High Court clearly misconstrued the Sessions Court order and proceeded on an
erroneous footing. On the other hand, the Revisional Court was also in error to the
extent of influencing the Magistrate Court to keep the findings of the Sessions Court
in mind, while considering the case on remand. The misconception created before
the High Court was due to the fact that the remand order provided discretion for the
trial court to conduct further enquiry and thereafter consider issuing process. The
High Court in the case at hand without appreciating the dichotomy between taking
cognizance and issuing summons, quashed the complaint itself on wrong
interpretation of law. In the light of the above, the impugned order of the High Court
cannot be sustained in the eye of the law.
17. On a perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059
6 MCRC-32233-2018
apparent that the learned Magistrate observes that the Sessions Court has already
made out a prima facie case. Such finding would be difficult to sustain as the
Revisional Court only observed certain aspects in furtherance of remanding the
matter. Such observations could not have been made by the Magistrate as he was
expected to apply his independent mind while taking cognizance. In the case on
hand, we recognise the limitation on the appellate forum to review subjective
satisfaction of the Magistrate while taking cognizance, but such independent
satisfaction unless reflected in the order would make it difficult to be sustained.
There is no dispute that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and
undoubtedly be seen to be done. It is wrought in our constitutional tradition that we
imbibe both substantive fairness as well as procedural fairness under our criminal
justice system, in the sense of according procedural fairness, in the making of
decisions which affect rights, interests and legitimate expectations, subject only to
the clear manifestation of a contrary statutory intention.
10. The material on record is examined in the light of aforestated propositions
of law.
11. The material on record reveals that Ambri Bai and Bansilal were well
aware of the judgment dated 30.11.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 15A/2016 by
learned Civil Judge, Khilchipur. Despite knowledge of this adverse judgment,
Ambri Bai executed sale deed in favour of her son Banshilal to cause wrongful
loss to the complainant - Laljiram by transferring the property which was the
subject matter of the civil suit. The intention to defraud and wrongfully deprive the
complainant of the fruits of litigation, can be inferred from inception of this sale
transaction. Shrilal is son-in-law and Onkar is maternal cousin of Ambri Bai. They
had deposed in favour of Ambri Bai in Civil suit. Thus, it can be inferred that
Shrilal and Onkar had knowledge of judgment of the civil suit against Ambri Bai
and they intentionally aided Ambri Bai in execution of sale deed dated 02.05.2017
and 01.06.2017 in favour of her son Banshilal.
12. In view of above discussion, this Court is of considered opinion that learned
Sessions Court committed no error in the impugned order. Learned Sessions Court
did not pass any order directing cognizance for offence punishable u/S 420 of IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9059
7 MCRC-32233-2018
Rather, the Sessions Judge, considering the legality of the order of Magistrate,
directed remand of the matter to proceed with the complaint in accordance with
law. Thus, no manifest impropriety or material illegality is made out necessitating
interference in exercise of inherent power of this Court u/S 482 of Cr.P.C.
13. Consequently, petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the
observations made by the Sessions Court or this Court relate to propriety of the
impugned order. The Magistrate shall conduct further inquiry into the complaint
without getting influenced by any observations in these orders.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
