[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tanveer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4778
1 MCRC-28951-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28951 of 2022
TANVEER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri. Manish Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Kapoor - GA for the State.
ORDER
1. Heard on IA Nos. 5714 of 2024, which is an application for taking
additional documents on record.
2. On due consideration, the same is allowed and the alleged
documents are taken on record.
3. This petition has been preferred by petitioner Tanveer under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered at crime no. 404 of
2021, Police Station-Rajgarh, Distric-Rajgarh for offence punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and all consequential
proceedings arising thereof.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the petition, contended that the impugned FIR is registered on
the basis of order dated 08/07/2021 passed exparte against the petitioner in
Case No. 0001/B/121/2021-22 by the Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora). The
Collector Rajgarh (Biaora), on consideration of the revenue records, found
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4778
2 MCRC-28951-2022
that the mutation entries in respect of the land bearing Survey nos. 33/7, 118
and 120 are forged by manipulation of the revenue records and directed the
Tehsildar, Rajgarh (Biaora) to register FIR against the petitioner Tanveer.
Accordingly, the impugned FIR was registered. Learned counsel referring to
Annexure-P/2 and Annexure -P/4, submits that the petitioner has purchased
the land comprised in survey No. 33/7 from Gajendra Kumar S/o
Radharaman. He could not produced the sale deed before the Collector,
Rajgarh (Biaora) as he was proceeded exparte in the proceeding. The sale
deed clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was bonafide purchaser. The
seller Gajendra had specifically mentioned in the sale deed that the land does
not belong to the Government. Further, he had purchased the lands bearing
Survey Nos. 118 and 120 from Shivkumar S/o Lalchand @ Radharaman by
registered sale deed dated 14th October, 2021. The lands comprised in
Survey Nos. 33/7, 118 and 120 have already been released for allotment
(kabilkasht). No document is available showing that the lands in dispute
were the Government lands, therefore, the Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora)
committed manifest error in directing registration of FIR. The consequential
FIR does not constitute the alleged offence against the petitioner. The
impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.
5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the State, referring to the
impugned order, submitted that the Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora), on
verification of the revenue record, concluded that the Survey No. 33/7,
Survey No. 118 and Survey No. 120 of Village Chandpura were recorded in
the revenue record as Government land reserved for grazing (charnoi). The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4778
3 MCRC-28951-2022
land bearing Survey No. 33/7 was later allotted to Gajendra Kumar as
Government leasee (Shashkiya Pattedar) for ten years. Gajendra Kumar had
no right to transfer the land, which was allotted to him as Govt. lease holder.
The sale deeds of the Government lands are illegal, therefore, the mutation in
revenue record on the basis of sale deed was manipulation of the
Government record. The Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora) did not commit any
error in directing registration of FIR for manipulation and forgery of revenue
record against the petitioner. The impugned FIR clearly makes out the
alleged offence. The petition is meritless.
6. Heard both the parties and perused the case diary as also the
record.
7. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 after an elaborate consideration of the
matter and after referring to its various earlier decisions, has observed in para
108 as under:-
''108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds
of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4778
4 MCRC-28951-2022
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge." (emphasis added)
8 . In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Vs State of Maharashtra
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) and
held that while the Courts ought to be cautious in exercising powers under
Section 482, they do have the power to quash the proceedings. The test is
whether or not, the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence. The Court should not enter into merits of the allegations
or trench upon the lawful power of Investigating Agency to investigate into
the allegations involving commission of a cognizable offence.
9 . In case of State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla , reported in
(1996) 8 SCC 164, it was held that the inherent power of the court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be very sparingly and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4778
5 MCRC-28951-2022
cautiously used only when the court comes to the conclusion that there
would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the
court, if such power is not exercised. So far as the order of cognizance by a
Magistrate is concerned, the inherent power can be exercised when the
allegations in the first information report or the complaint together with the
other materials collected during investigation taken at their face value, do not
constitute the offence alleged. At that stage, it is not open for the court either
to sift the evidence or appreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion
that no prima facie case is made out. Again, in case of ARCI v. Nimra
Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 348, the Supreme Court
reiterated the well-settled principle that while exercising inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC, it is not for the High Court to appreciate the
evidence and its truthfulness or sufficiency inasmuch as it is the function of
the trial court.
10. The petitioner Tanveer has placed reliance on the sale deed dated
14.10.2011 executed by Shivkumar related to land comprised in Survey
No(s). 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 118, 119, 120,
125,126, 132, 133 and 134, total Survey No(s) - 18, area 6.474 hectares of
Village Chandpur and other sale deed dated 14.10.2011 executed by
Gajendra Kumar for land comprised in Survey No.33/7 area 1.015 hectare of
Village Chandpura.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is
bonafide purchaser for the value of agricultural land which was informed to
be private land by the seller. Therefore, the mutation in favour of petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4778
6 MCRC-28951-2022
was properly done by the revenue authorities. The order dated 08.07.2021 of
the Collector and consequent FIR are baseless and unjustified.
12. The petitioner has relied on revenue proceedings regarding
declaration and conversion of land comprised in Survey No. 33/7 from Govt.
land reserved for grazing(charnoi) to Govt. land to the land available for
allotment(kabil kasht) and the relevant revenue entry of year 1976-1977 to
support his case.
13. The khasra entry of year 1976-77 relied by the petitioner records
that the Government land earlier reserved for grazing(charnoi) was released
for allotment and Gajendra Kumar S/o Radharaman was granted lease of land
comprised in Survey No. 33/7, Area 1.015 hectare by the order of Tehsildar
in Revenue Case No. 1975-76 dated 07.06.1976 (khasra entry Annexure P-
6). Thus, the revenue record relied upon by the petitioner itself show that the
land comprised in Survey No. 33/7 Area 1.015 hectare was Government land
which was given on lease to Gajendra S/o Radharaman. Gajendra as
Government lessee, therefore, he had no right to transfer the lease hold
property as bhoomiswami or the title holder to the petitioner without
complying with the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code. The other
revenue entries i.e. khasra panchshala for the year 1987-1992 submitted by
the petitioner show the land bearing Survey No. 33/7 continues to be
Government grazing land(charnoi) possessed by Rajendra Kumar.
14. The relevant mutation record was seized during investigation.
The revenue record (Nagrik Tatha Nagarikaran Kshetron Ke Gaon ke Liye
Namantaran Panji) of year 2011 shows that the land comprised in Survey
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4778
7 MCRC-28951-2022
Nos. 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 118, 119, 120, 125,
126, 132, 133 and 134, total Survey No(s) 18, area 6.474 hectares of Village
Chandpur and Survey No. 33/7, Area 1.015 hectare of Village Chandpur was
mutated in favour of Tanveer Warsi on the basis of sale deed dated
14.10.20211 executed by Shiv Kumar S/o Lalchand alias Radharaman The
petitioner did not submit the sale deed executed by Gajendra in his favour
regarding Survey No. 33/7 of Village Chandpur at the time of this mutation.
Still, the concerned Survey No. 33/7 was mutated in favour of Tanveer
Warsi. The information memo of concerned Halka Patwari Virendra Pratap
Pushpad reveals that Tanveer and the then Tehsildar Ramesh Chandra Panthi
added Survey No. 33/7 in the Mutation Register without furnishing or
making an entry of sale deed executed by Gajendra in favour of Tanveer. It
can be easily inferred that since the land comprised in Survey no.33/7 was
Government land and Gajendra being a Government lessee, was not
authorized to transfer the land, said sale deed was not furnished at the time of
mutation proceedings. Thus, the Collector, Rajgarh did not commit any error
in concluding that there was apparent manipulation and forgery of
Government record regarding mutation of Survey No. 33/7 area 1.015
Hectare in favour of Tanveer Warsi.
15. The Collector on verification of revenue records had further
concluded that the Survey No. 118 and 120 of Village Chandpur were also
Government land. Therefore, mutation of the land comprised in these survey
numbers was also illegal. The material on record prima-facie substantiates
the allegations against the petitioner, Tanveer Warsi. The veracity,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4778
8 MCRC-28951-2022
correctness or falsehood of the revenue record will be subject matter of the
trial. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
cannot indulge into meticulous examination with regard to accusation based
on verification of revenue entries.
16. In view of above discussion, the impugned FIR cannot be said to
be baseless, absurd, inherently improbable, malafide or maliciously intended
to wreck vengeance with the petitioner. Rather, the alleged offence is prima-
facie made out from the contents of FIR and the material collected during
investigation. Therefore, no case is made out to quash the impugned FIR and
subsequent proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
17. Consequently, present petition is dismissed.
C. C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
