Keshav Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6735




                                                             1                           MCRC-24858-2023
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                       BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
                                               ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24858 of 2023
                                                   KESHAV SINGH
                                                       Versus
                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha- Advocate for respondent No.2.
                                  Shri Brajesh Kumar Tyagi - PL for the State.

                                                                 ORDER

This petition is under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking/482 of the Cr.P.C. quashment of the order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Revision No. 27/2023. The learned revisional Court had interfered with the order dated 04.03.2023 of the trial Court framing charges under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against respondent No.2/ Milan Kapoor and others. The

petitioner prays for setting aside the said revision order and for restoration of the charge framing order dated 04.03.2023.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and co-accused Ranveer Singh and Maharana Pratap are real brothers. A dispute regarding ancestral cultivation land situate at Village Sirmiti, District Morena was the subject matter of a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6735

2 MCRC-24858-2023 partition. During pendency, the parties settled the civil suit by way of compromise by which Survey Nos. 16/02 (0.19 acre) and 177 Min (0.02 acre) were allotted in favour of the petitioner. Prior to such compromise, the same lands had been sold by the mother of the parties, Smt. Dhanvanti, in favour of respondent No.2 Milan Kapoor in a registered sale deed, where co- accused Ranveer Singh and Maharana Pratap were witnesses. The petitioner alleges that the sale deed and existence of the transaction was deliberately not disclosed during compromise proceedings. Respondent No.2 did not seek mutation for these lands for almost six years but moved an application for mutation immediately after the compromise decree in favour of the petitioner was passed. Therefore, FIR dated 08.06.2017 was lodged. On conclusion of investigation, the Trial Court framed charges against Milan Kapoor under

Sections 420/120-B IPC vide order dated 04.03.2023. In revision, Sessions Judge, Morena quashed the charges against respondent No.2 by order dated 16.05.2023, therefore, this petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revisional order was passed without hearing the complainant, as a necessary party. Prima facie material for offences under Section 420 and Section 120-B IPC existed. Documentary and circumstantial evidence indicated conspiracy and cheating, but, the sessions court, while ignoring the material available on record prima facies implicating the petitioner, has adopted only technical approach. Hence, this petition be allowed and order dated 16.05.2023 may be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that in police report, FIR and statement

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6735

3 MCRC-24858-2023 recorded under Section 161 there are not any allegations that Mrs. Dhanvanti was not owner of such lands according to will of Bhogiram. It is also to be noted that petitioner Milan Kapoor was not plaintiff or defendant of civil suit and he was not party in compromise petition. There is not any allegation against respondent No.2/Milan Kapoor that he has taken an active part in compromise and there was an agreement between respondent No.2 and co- accused for compromise. In charge-sheet and documents filed with it, main allegations for playing fraud with complainant are against co-accused Ranveer Singh and Maharana Pratap. Only an allegation against respondent No.2/Milan Kapoor is that after sale deed, mutation of purchased land was not done by him. Only such allegation will not be ground for charges of offence punishable under section 120-B and 420 IPC.

Learned counsel for respondent/State also opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by supporting the impugned order.

Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record with due care.

The petition is maintainable under Section 528 of BNSS (replacing Section 482 Cr.P.C.) which preserves inherent powers of this Court to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure ends of justice.

The settled jurisprudence is that at the stage of framing charges the Court must see whether a prima facie case or strong suspicion exists, and should not engage in trial-like appreciation of evidence.

The law regarding interference at pre-charge stage under inherent

jurisdiction is now well settled through a long line of judgments of this Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6735

4 MCRC-24858-2023 as well as the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander , (2012) 9 SCC 460, reiterated that:

"At the stage of framing of charges, the Judge must see if the prosecution story discloses ingredients of offence and nothing more."

I n Sajjan Kumar v. CBI , (2010) 9 SCC 368, it was held that strong suspicion from material placed on record is sufficient for framing charge.

It is not permissible at this stage to conduct a mini-trial or to appreciate defence evidence which would be the subject matter of full trial.

It is settled that even if a matter arises from a civil dispute, criminal prosecution is maintainable where dishonest intention and deception are prima facie established.

I n Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (1999) 3 SCC 259, it was held:

"A transaction with civil flavour may still be criminal if elements of deception and dishonest intention are present."

Here, it is established that the land was an ancestral property under civil dispute and sold prior to compromise. Failure to disclose such material fact during a compromise decree can be viewed as a deliberate strategy to mislead and deceive.

Criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC requires a meeting of minds to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The Supreme Court in Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1988) 3 SCC 609 observed:

"Conspiracy may be proved by inference drawn from conduct and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6735

5 MCRC-24858-2023 circumstances."

More recently the Supreme Court in Ninad S. Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 696, reiterated:

"Direct evidence of conspiracy is rarely available, and conspiratorial conduct must be gathered from the conduct of parties, timing of actions, and surrounding circumstances."

In the present case, the following facts cumulatively establish a prima facie conspiracy:

i) Respondent No.2 was a resident of Haryana and he was in acquaintance of the co-accused persons.

ii) Co-accused brothers were witnesses to the sale deed.

iii) The sale deed was concealed from compromise proceedings.

iv) Mutation was sought only after the land was confirmed in favour of petitioner.

These circumstances raise a strong inference of coordinated conduct. Though respondent No.2 contends that mutation delay was in good faith, such defence can only be tested at trial. The timing and sequence of events prima facie suggest deliberate concealment and collusion. In State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar , (2011) 14 SCC 770, the Supreme Court held that dishonest intention is a matter for trial when reasonable grounds exist. The Sessions Court failed to consider the totality of circumstances and dealt with the allegations in isolation.

Though the property is ancestral and subject to civil adjudication, criminal prosecution is not barred when dishonest intention is prima facie

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6735

6 MCRC-24858-2023 made out. The conduct of respondent No.2 in remaining silent for six years and asserting rights immediately after compromise raises serious suspicion requiring trial. The cumulative effect of the conduct of respondent No.2 and co-accused discloses prima facie is ingredient of Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.

The Court is only required to examine existence of prima facie material or strong suspicion. Detailed evaluation of defence is impermissible. Even where civil proceedings exist, criminal prosecution is maintainable if allegations disclose dishonest intention. Criminal conspiracy may be inferred from conduct, timing and surrounding circumstances. Revisional Court erred in quashing charges by appreciating defence pleas prematurely.

The accused acted in concert to conceal the prior sale of disputed ancestral property during compromise proceedings, thereby dishonestly inducing the complainant to accept a compromised allotment. Non-disclosure of prior sale, compromise entered without knowledge of sale, petitioner deprived of lawful property, are the ingredients of offence under Section 420 of the IPC and registered sale deed,, compromise application and decree, mutation application timing and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., are materials available on record raising doubt over the conduct of respondent No.2.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that

a prima facie case under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC is made out against respondent No.2. The conduct of respondent No.2 raises strong suspicion requiring full trial. Revisional Court erred in quashing charges at pre-trial

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6735

7 MCRC-24858-2023 stage.

Accordingly, rhe present petition is allowed. The order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Revision No. 27/2023 is hereby set aside. The order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the Trial Court framing charges against respondent No.2 Milan Kapoor under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC is hereby restored. It is clarified that observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this petition and shall not prejudice either party in the trial proceedings.

(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA ) JUDGE

Vishal