[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vipin Kumar Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15099
1 MCRC-6675-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6675 of 2017
VIPIN KUMAR AGRAWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manikant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sachindra Raghuvanshi - PL for State.
Shri Shivam Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
The petitioners, being aggrieved by the FIR No.744/2014 registered at
Police Station Harda, District Harda, for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 294 & 506-B of the IPC, have filed the present petition
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the
aforesaid FIR and charge-sheet filed in ST No.98/2016, pending before the Court
of ADJ Harda (M.P.).
2. The respondent No.2 submitted a complaint to the IG Harda, which
was forwarded to the SP Harda. The same was again forwarded to the ASP, then
P. S: Harda, and thereafter lodged an FIR against the petitioner. As per the written
complaint the complainant was a Director in a Company which is private limited
company named as M/s. Nikhil Sugar Limited Harda. He was actively associate
on the working of the Company and the petitioners are Board of Directors of the
same Company. They had prepared a forged resignation letter in the name of
respondent No.2 and signed the same putting forged signature. By practicing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15099
2 MCRC-6675-2017
fraud, they had removed the respondent No.2 from the post of Director as well as
abused and threatened of dire consequences. Cash credit limit from Rs. 14.75
Crore to Rs. 16.89 Crore was sanctioned to the bank was enhanced and certain
shares were also transferred in in the name of their family members.
3. It is submitted by the counsel of the petitioners that, the complainant
Natwarlal forwarded a complaint on 10.10.2014 to the Inspector General of Police
Hoshangabad. He did not lodge any complaint at police station, Harda, neither did
he submit any complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Harda. He has also not
explained any cogent reason why the report was not lodged at the police station or
sent to the Superintendent of Police. Additional Inspector General of Police,
Hoshangabad directed the Additional Superintendent of Police Harda to conduct
an inquiry on the complaint of Natwarlal. No inquiry was conducted by the
Additional Superintendent of Police. The Police did not verify the fact that
whether the signature on the resignation letter submitted by Natwarlal was
genuine or not. The applicants submitted a report of handwriting expert J. L.
Rathor. It is mentioned in the report that signature on the resignation of respondent
No.2 is genuine. Apart from this Mr. Satya Narayan Goel and Shrikrishna
Agrawal also resigned along with the complainant and tendered the affidavits.
They deposed that they along with the complainant had tendered their resignation
letters.
4. It is submitted that, the concerned company is in loss of Rs.32 Cr.
and if the applicant is a Director then, there is no reason to escape from his
liability of the loss incurred in the concerned company. The complainant was not
an active director of the company, but a sleeping director and has been working on
'no profit-no loss' basis. If he wants to remain the director of the company, he is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15099
3 MCRC-6675-2017
very much allowed to do so. It is mentioned here that in view of the transactions
taken place amongst the complainant and the petitioners the competent authority
to deal with the issues is Registrar of Companies before whom the petitioners have
already stated that the complainant if wishes may join again as a Director in the
Company. In this regard, the petitioners has already made a representation to the
concerning police officials and brought into his knowledge as per Annexure P/7 .
5. It is further submitted that, during the course of investigation, the
petitioners gave a detailed statement and representation and brought into the
knowledge of the police authorities that, after his resignation they have got the
complainant's property released from the bank and in lieu of his properties
provided other properties to the bank and thereafter on the assessment made by the
bank. The bank has enhanced the CC Limit on the newly added properties by the
petitioners. (Annexure P/1, P/2, P/3 and P/4) .
6. It is contended that, during the course of investigation, the Police has
got the alleged resignation letter examined through the State Examiner and the
report filed by the State Examiner dated 27.12.2016 submitted in connection with
Crime No.744/2015, mentions this fact that the signature on the documents are not
made by the petitioners and thus it is evident that the complaint filed by the
complainant has substance. (Annexure P/7).
7. It is submitted that, the petitioner No 1 and the complainant and some
other persons were the partners in "Friends Welfare Education Society, Harda"
and the part of the land owned by the petitioner No 1 was fraudulently got
transferred (Annexure A/1) in the personal name of the brother of the
complainant. In this regard, the petitioner has made complaints dated 24.06.2015
prior to the registration of the FIR to the Superintendent of Police, Harda
regarding the said illegal transaction (Annexure A/2). The petitioner No 1 and 2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15099
4 MCRC-6675-2017
have also filed a civil suit against Navneet Patel (brother of the complainant) for
declaring the sale deed null and void (Annexure A/3) . In the said civil suit, the
complainant has also entered appearance and submitted his written statement and
denied the allegation of the plaint (Annexure A/4) . It is further submitted by the
counsel of the petitioner that this FIR is nothing but a counterblast of the
complaint dated 24.06.2015 made by the petitioner.
8. It is also contended by the counsel of the petitioner that, the petitioner
No 1, has also communicated to the SP Harda, dated 21.05.2013 prior to the FIR
regarding threat to his life and to make an assault or mishap in a planned manner
upon him by the complainant and his other partners (Annexure A/8) .
9. It is submitted that, the above dispute prevailing in between the
parties is of purely civil in nature and also decided by the registrar of the
companies, Gwalior dated 22.05.2017. No evidence, no documents has been
collected by the investigation officer during the investigation in support of the
allegations. This FIR is nothing but clearly abuse of law and counterblast of the
complaint made by the petitioner. From a bare perusal of the FIR, prima facie no
case is made out against the petitioner, therefore FIR and subsequent proceedings
be quashed.
10. Learned counsel of the state contended that, as per the state examiner
report dated 27.12.2016, signature on the alleged documents are not made by the
respondent no 2, therefore complaint filed by the complainant has substance. The
counsel further submits that, the petitioner has made a forged and fabricated
resignation letter and sent to various authorities for personal gain and have taken
undue advantage of the same, in this regard there are sufficient material available
on record. It is also submitted that, there are certain acts which attract civil and
criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that, the act of the petitioners is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15099
5 MCRC-6675-2017
clearly a serious offence, in this regard charge-sheet has been filed and trial is
pending before the Learned Trial Court and thus the instant petition sans merits
and deserves to be dismissed.
11. It is made clear that during the course of arguments by the petitioner,
counsel of the respondent no 2 was present, on his request the case was to be
passed over after lunch for argument, but the counsel did not appear.
12. This court has bestowed it's anxious consideration of the rival
submission advanced by the Learned Counsel of the parties and has clearly
examined the FIR, the material placed on record and the law governing the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.
13. The inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the CrPC
is required to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection, only in the
case where the allegations, even if taken at the face value, do not disclose the
commission of any offence, or where continuation of the proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of law. This principal has been consistently
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335" and "Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3
SCC 4".
14. From the perusal of the FIR and entire material collected by the
prosecution. There are mainly 3 allegations against the petitioners; firstly, the
petitioner has prepared a fabricated resignation letter in the name of the respondent
no. 2 and signed the same putting forged signature; secondly, on 12.08.2014 cash
credit limit which was sanctioned to the SBI bank was enhanced by mortgaging
the company's assets from Rs. 14.75 Cr. to Rs. 16.89 Cr.; thirdly, the petitioners
have fraudulently allotted additional shares of the company in the name of their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15099
6 MCRC-6675-2017
family members.
15. Regarding the second and third allegations, no documentary evidence
and no material has been collected by the investigation agency to show that, the
petitioners have illegally allotted additional shares of the company in the name of
their family members and fraudulently enhanced the credit limit by mortgaging
the company's assets. Perusal of the Annexure P/9 issued by the Registrar of the
Companies and other material reflects that, property given by the complainant as
security has been released by the bank and fresh properties have been provided by
the petitioners as securities and the limit has been increased. The perusal of the
records also reflects that the properties of the complainant has been discharged by
the bank and the complainant himself issued a legal notice for return of title deeds
after discharge of the securities as per legal notice dated 29.11.2014 (Annexure
A/10). The natures of these allegations are required to be proved by relevant
documentary evidence. It is unclear as to the ownership of the alleged shares of
the company and in whose name(s) the same were held. It remains undetermined
whether the shares stood in the name of the complainant or were transferred to any
other person. Furthermore, no evidence or material has been collected or produced
before the competent court to substantiate the same.
16. So far as the first allegation, namely, the alleged preparation of a
forged resignation letter of respondent No.2 is concerned, this Court finds that the
same does not prima facie disclose the commission of the offences alleged against
the petitioners when examined in the light of the material placed on record and the
surrounding circumstances. At the outset, it is significant to note that the dispute
between the parties is not an isolated criminal allegation but arises out of a long-
standing civil and personal dispute. The record reveals that prior to the registration
of the present FIR, petitioner No.1 had already initiated proceedings and lodged
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15099
7 MCRC-6675-2017
complaints against the brother of the complainant in respect of fraudulent transfer
of land, and a civil suit challenging the said transaction is pending before the
competent civil court between the petitioner and the complainant and his brother.
The sequence of events, therefore, lends considerable weight to the contention of
the petitioners that the present FIR is a counterblast, instituted with an oblique
motive to exert pressure. Further, the material placed on record indicates that the
complainant was not an active Director of the company, but merely a sleeping
director working on a "no profit-no loss" basis, and was not deriving any financial
benefit from the affairs of the company. In such circumstances, this Court finds
substance in the submission that there was no conceivable advantage to the
petitioners in allegedly forging his resignation. On the contrary, at the relevant
time, the company was admittedly running in heavy losses and if the complainant
continued as Director, he would equally share the burden of such losses. The
allegation that the petitioners fabricated a resignation to oust him, thereby
releasing him from liability, appears inherently improbable and contrary to normal
business conduct. It is also noteworthy that the petitioners, in their
contemporaneous representations to the authorities, had clearly stated that the
complainant, if so willing, could re-join the company in the same capacity and
take the financial liability, and the issue regarding his directorship was already
subject matter of proceedings before the Registrar of Companies.
17. Another significant circumstance is that the complainant did not
lodge any direct complaint before the jurisdictional police station or the
Superintendent of Police, and instead approached higher authorities without
furnishing any cogent explanation for bypassing the ordinary procedure. This also
casts doubt on the bona fides of the allegations at the threshold. Most importantly,
as regards the core allegation of forgery, the material collected during
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15099
8 MCRC-6675-2017
investigation, particularly the opinion of the State Examiner clearly indicates that
the questioned signatures on the alleged resignation letter do not match with the
admitted signatures of the petitioners. Apart from this, the expert report dated
08.11.2014 given by Shri J.L. Rathore handwriting expert of Bhopal, that the
signature found on the alleged resignation letter were of the complainant/
respondent no. 2.
18. A significant aspect is that the resignation of respondent No.2 is not
an isolated or standalone incident. The record reflects that two other Directors of
the company, namely Shri Satya Narayan Goel and Shri Shrikrishna Agrawal, had
also tendered their resignations contemporaneously along with the complainant.
The said persons have not only resigned from their respective positions but have
also filed sworn affidavits affirming that they, along with the complainant, had
voluntarily submitted their resignation letters. This contemporaneous conduct of
multiple Directors, duly supported by affidavits, lends considerable credence to
the version of the petitioners that the resignation of respondent No.2 was part of a
collective and voluntary decision, rather than a unilateral act brought about by
forgery.
19. Further, when this circumstance is examined in conjunction with the
report of the State Examiner, which does not attribute the questioned signatures to
the petitioners, it becomes evident that there is no direct or even circumstantial
material linking the petitioners to the alleged act of forgery. Even assuming that
the signatures are disputed, the prosecution has completely failed to establish as to
who actually authored or fabricated the document, and more importantly, how the
petitioners can be held responsible for the same.
20. Regarding the allegation of the abusive words and threatening to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15099
9 MCRC-6675-2017
complainant is concerned, in this regard the allegation made in 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 the case alleged against the petitioner
because of no date, time, place mentioned in the complaint regarding the incident.
As per the complaint, the complainant himself approached the petitioners and what
abusive words were uttered by the petitioners is not mentioned in the complaint,
therefore, it is a clear abuse of the process of law and the criminal proceedings
have found to be initiated with maladies for breaking vengeance to cause harm to
the petitioners.
21. Thus, even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, there is
no material to establish that the petitioners themselves forged or authored the
alleged document. In absence of any evidence demonstrating authorship,
preparation, or use of the alleged forged document by the petitioners with requisite
mens rea, the essential ingredients of offences remain unfulfilled. This is a fit case
to excise inherent jurisdiction under section 528 BNSS/ 482 CrPC, therefore, the
petition is allowed. The FIR bearing crime no. 744/2014 dated 11.11.2014 and all
consequential criminal proceedings are hereby quashed in respect of the
petitioners.
22. The petition and any pending IAs are disposed off accordingly.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@SM@
