Vikash Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177




                                             1                            MCRC-20520-2023
             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                   AT GWALIOR
                                       BEFORE
                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20520 of 2023
                            VIKASH SHARMA AND OTHERS
                                      Versus
                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
         Appearance:
                  Shri Prakash Braru - Advocate for the petitioners.
                  Ms. Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
                  Shri Khub Chand Verma, Upendra Kumar Shrivas and Deepak Kumar
         Gupta - Advocates for the respondent No.2.

         RESERVED ON            :-   17/02/2026
         DELIVERD ON            :-   23/02/2026
                                                 ORDER

By invoking the inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners No.1 and 2, namely, Vikash Sharma and Pankar Rajput under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)/482 of CrPC seeking quashment of F.I.R. registered as Crime

No. 257 of 2022 at Police Station University, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

FACTS As per prosecution story, the complainant/respondent No.2, Smt. Munni Devi @ Meena Verma, wife of Shri Khoobchand Verma, aged about NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

2 MCRC-20520-2023 70 years, resident of Subhash Bada, Danaoli, Lashkar, Gwalior (M.P.), filed a private complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, against the following accused persons, namely, 1. Santosh Singh Kushwah, 2. Shyam Yadav, 3. Satendra Singh Gurjar, 4. Bhupendra Singh Rana, 5. Vikas Sharma (petitioner No.1) , 6. Pradeep Singh Chauhan, 7 . Pankaj Rajput (petitioner No.2) , 8. Abhay Limaye (Service Provider, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ohadpur, Gwalior).

The complainant/respondent No.2 owned an immovable property situated at Adarsh Mill Road, Bahodapur, District Gwalior, Ward No.1, ad- measuring approximately 11 x 14154 square feet. On 17.02.2021, she entered into an agreement to sell the said property to accused No.1 Santosh Kushwah, for a total consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. Out of the said amount,

Rs.1,30,000/- was paid in advance, and the remaining Rs.3,70,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed within four months from the date of agreement. As accused No.1 Santosh Kushwah failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time, he sought an additional period of two months and requested that the notarized agreement be converted into a registered agreement. On 21.06.2021, the complainant accompanied accused No.1 Santosh Kushwah in his car to the Sub-Registrar's Office at Ohadpur, City Centre, Gwalior, for execution of the registered document. Since her husband was ill and elderly, he did not accompany her. Trusting accused No.1 Santosh Kushwah, she signed and affixed her thumb impression on the documents presented to her. She was taken before the Sub-Registrar, her photograph was taken, and she NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

3 MCRC-20520-2023 was brought back home. She was not asked any questions by the Sub- Registrar. Later, when she requested a copy of the registered agreement, accused No.1 Santosh Kushwah failed to provide it. Upon inquiry at the Sub- Registrar's office by her husband and nephew (an Advocate), it was discovered that instead of registering an agreement to sell, accused No.1 Santosh Kushwah, in conspiracy with other accused persons, had fraudulently executed a Power of Attorney in favor of accused No.2, Shyam Yadav. Furthermore, instead of the agreed property ad-measuring 154 square feet, the Power of Attorney mentioned a much larger land ad-measuring approximately 12,000 square feet situated near Jail Road, Bahodapur, Ward No.1, Gwalior, bearing Survey Nos.498/01, 498/03, 500 and 501. It was further revealed that accused No.8, Abhay Limaye, a service provider at the Sub-Registrar's office, had booked an e-stamp slot and facilitated the execution of the Power of Attorney using forged signatures of the complainant. Accused No.1 Santosh Kushwah and accused No. 3/Satendra Singh Gurjar signed as witnesses to this Power of Attorney. Upon learning about the fraud, the complainant sought to cancel the Power of Attorney and booked a slot on 12.07.2021 for execution of a deed of cancellation. However, before she could effectively nullify the fraudulent document, accused No.2, Shyam Yadav, in conspiracy with accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, namely, Satendra Singh Gurjar, Bhupendra Singh Rana, Vikas Sharma (petitioner No.1), Pradeep Singh Chauhan and Pankaj Rajput (petitioner No.2), executed a sale deed on 13.07.2021 at 03:04 PM on the basis of the

said Power of Attorney. Accused No.1 Santosh Kushwah acted as a witness NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

4 MCRC-20520-2023 in the said sale deed, and accused No.7, Pankaj Rajput (petitioner No.2) also assisted in the conspiracy. It was alleged that the Sub-Registrar officials, namely, Dushyant Dixit and Kailash Narayan Verma, colluded with the accused persons by misusing their official positions and facilitating the execution of the fraudulent documents despite the complainant's attempt to cancel the Power of Attorney. The complainant alleged that she was only able to sign her name and her husband was unwell, and the accused persons, being land mafias, conspired to usurp her property by forging her signatures and fabricating documents. The complainant submitted written complaints to Police Station University, Gwalior, on 26.07.2021 and to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, on 28.07.2021. However, no FIR was registered. Consequently, she filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and vide order dated 23.11.2021, this Court directed her to approach the competent Magistrate for appropriate action. In compliance of the aforsaid directions, a complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the learned JMFC, vide order dated 10.05.2022 had directed for registration of First Information Report against the accused persons. Accordingly, and FIR bearing Crime No.257 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC at Police Station University, Gwalior (MP) was regisetered.

ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for the petitioners No.1 and 2, namely, Vikash NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

5 MCRC-20520-2023 Sharma and Pankar Rajput submitted before this Court that the impugned FIR is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed at the threshold, as the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false, baseless, and devoid of any substantive material and even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, no offence is made out against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC.

It was further submitted that petitioner No.1, along with other co- owners, purchased the land in question after paying the settled sale consideration to the Power of Attorney holder of the land owner and the sale deed dated 13.07.2021 was executed in their favour by the duly authorized Power of Attorney holder. Petitioner No.1 acted in good faith and relied upon the registered Power of Attorney. The executant of the sale deed had never disputed his signatures nor alleged that the same were forged and the authenticity of the document executed before the Sub-Registrar has been duly affirmed by the attesting witnesses. Petitioner No.2 merely signed the document as a witness to certify that the executant had signed in his presence and there is no allegation that the petitioners forged any signature or fabricated any document. The sale deed was executed before the competent Sub-Registrar, a quasi-judicial authority, and carries a statutory presumption of validity unless set aside by a competent civil court.

It was further submitted that the petitioners were not present at the Sub-Registrar's office in connection with any other document relating to the disputed land, nor was there any specific allegation regarding their involvement in the execution of the alleged Power of Attorney. Their names NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

6 MCRC-20520-2023 were unnecessarily and maliciously included in the FIR without any reasonable basis. The complaint appears to have been filed with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners and to achieve collateral objectives.

It was further submitted that the dispute, even as per the complaint and the private complaint filed before the learned JMFC, is purely civil in nature arising out of a property transaction and the complainant had already instituted a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed and the Power of Attorney, which is pending adjudication before the competent civil court. The criminal proceedings have been initiated despite the pendency of the civil dispute, thereby gave a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil matter. The learned Magistrate, while directing registration of the FIR, failed to consider the pendency of the civil proceedings and passed the order without proper application of mind.

It was further submitted that the complainant suppressed material facts before the learned Magistrate and contrary to her allegations that her husband was not present at the time of execution of the Power of Attorney, it was revealed that her husband, a practicing Advocate, was present at the Sub- Registrar's office along with his junior at the relevant time. Photographs collected by the petitioners substantiated this fact. The complaint was therefore founded upon false and fabricated assertions, and an affidavit was filed by the complainant affirming such incorrect facts. Such suppression and

misrepresentation vitiate the entire criminal proceeding.

It was further submitted that the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC is not made out in the absence of any allegation of dishonest intention at NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

7 MCRC-20520-2023 the inception of the transaction and as per Section 415 IPC, cheating requires deception coupled with dishonest inducement leading to delivery of property or causing wrongful loss and wrongful gain. The FIR was completely silent regarding any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners at the inception of the transaction. There was no allegation that the petitioners induced the complainant to execute any document by deception. The consideration amount was duly paid to the Power of Attorney holder, and no wrongful gain or wrongful loss has been demonstrated. Similarly, the offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC relating to forgery are not attracted in the absence of any forged document attributable to the petitioners. For an offence under these provisions to be made out, the ingredients of Section 463 IPC must be satisfied. There was no allegation that the petitioners prepared any forged document or used any forged document as genuine. The documents, in question, were executed before the Sub-Registrar, and there was no material to show that any signature of the petitioners was forged or they forged the signature of any other person. In the absence of foundational facts constituting forgery, the continuation of proceedings under these sections is legally untenable.

It was further submitted that the allegations regarding criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC are vague and omnibus in nature, as there was no specific averment or material to show any prior meeting of minds or agreement between the petitioners and other accused persons to commit any illegal act. Mere presence as a purchaser or attesting witness in a registered sale deed does not give rise to a presumption of conspiracy. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

8 MCRC-20520-2023 It was further submitted that criminal liability cannot be fastened on the basis of conjectures and surmises and the FIR does not disclose any direct or independent evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged offences. The allegations are general and unspecific, and no overt act has been attributed to them. The criminal prosecution appears to have been initiated to exert pressure and to settle personal scores arising out of a property dispute.

It was also submitted that if ordinary civil transactions relating to sale and purchase of property are allowed to be converted into criminal prosecutions without satisfying the statutory ingredients of the offences alleged, it would have serious repercussions and would result in abuse of the process of law. Criminal law cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for harassment or for settling civil disputes.

In view of the foregoing submissions, it was prayed that the FIR bearing Crime No. 257/2022 registered at Police Station University, Gwalior (M.P.), for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, duly assisted by counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposed the prayer for quashment of the FIR and submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, as the allegations made in the complaint and the FIR clearly disclosed the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the allegations contained in the FIR, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

9 MCRC-20520-2023 and not to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence whatsoever.

Learned counsel submits that the complainant, an elderly lady aged about 70 years, was induced to visit the office of the Sub-Registrar on the pretext of converting a notarized agreement to sell into a registered agreement. Instead, a Power of Attorney was fraudulently executed in favour of co-accused Shyam Yadav for a substantially larger parcel of land than what was agreed upon. The very nature of the allegations demonstrates deception and fraudulent intention from the inception. The sale deed dated 13.07.2021 was executed immediately after the complainant sought cancellation of the Power of Attorney, which indicates a concerted and pre- planned conspiracy among the accused persons, including the present petitioners.

It was further submitted that the role of the present petitioners is specifically mentioned in the complaint, as petitioner No.1 is a beneficiary of the impugned sale deed, having purchased the property on the strength of the allegedly fraudulent Power of Attorney and petitioner No.2 is stated to have actively assisted in the execution of the sale deed and to have participated in the transaction despite knowledge of the irregularities. The proximity in time between the booking of cancellation of the Power of Attorney and the hurried execution of the sale deed raises serious suspicion and justifies a thorough investigation.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

10 MCRC-20520-2023 It was further submitted that the contention that the dispute is purely civil in nature is misconceived, as merely because a civil suit was filed does not bar criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose ingredients of criminal offences. Civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously if the facts so warrant. The existence of a civil remedy does not extinguish criminal liability arising out of fraudulent or dishonest acts.

It was also argued that the plea of good faith and bona fide purchase raised by the petitioners involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. Whether the petitioners had knowledge of the alleged fraud, whether they acted in conspiracy with other accused persons, and whether the Power of Attorney was obtained by deception are all matters requiring investigation and trial. These issues cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of quashment.

It was further submitted that the allegations of forgery are serious in nature and the complainant had specifically alleged that her signatures were misused and she was deceived into executing documents different from what was represented to her. If the Power of Attorney itself was fraudulently obtained, any subsequent sale deed executed on its basis would be tainted. The involvement of the petitioners in such transaction is a matter for investigation, and the Court should not stifle the prosecution at its nascent stage.

It was further submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate directing registration of the FIR was passed after due consideration of the complaint and material placed on record. The police have registered the FIR NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

11 MCRC-20520-2023 in compliance with the judicial order, and investigation is either ongoing or has resulted in collection of material evidence. Interference at this stage would amount to pre-empting the statutory process of investigation.

It was further submitted that the inherent powers of this Court are not intended to evaluate the sufficiency or reliability of evidence and so long as the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the case does not fall within the limited categories warranting quashment, the proceedings ought not to be interfered with. The petitioners have an efficacious remedy to establish their innocence during investigation or at the stage of trial.

On these grounds, it was prayed that the petition seeking quashment of the FIR, thereby permitting the investigating agency to complete the investigation and allowing the matter to proceed in accordance with law be dismissed.

DICUSSION AND CONCLUSION Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned FIR arises out of a transaction relating to sale and purchase of immovable property, which was already the subject matter of a pending civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed and Power of Attorney. The core dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, relating to title and validity of documents, for which an efficacious remedy was being pursued before the competent Civil Court.

A careful reading of the FIR and the complaint does not disclose the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

12 MCRC-20520-2023 essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC insofar as the present petitioners are concerned as there are no specific and distinct allegations attributing any overt act of forgery, fabrication, or dishonest inducement to the petitioners. The allegations are omnibus in nature and do not demonstrate that the petitioners had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, which is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 420 IPC. Similarly, in the absence of material indicating that the petitioners prepared or used any forged document as genuine, the offences relating to forgery are not prima facie made out.

The Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has authoritatively laid down categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings, including where the allegations in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention. Likewise, in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, it was held that criminal proceedings should not be permitted to be used as an instrument of harassment when the dispute is predominantly civil

in nature. Further, in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Apex Court reiterated that while civil and criminal proceedings may coexist, a purely civil dispute should not be given a cloak of criminality in the absence of necessary ingredients of the alleged offences.

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

13 MCRC-20520-2023 proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law and the criminal proceedings appear to have been initiated to exert pressure in a civil dispute concerning property rights. Allowing such prosecution to continue would result in unnecessary harassment and miscarriage of justice.

It is also evident from the record that the complainant/Smt. Munni Devi @ Meena Verma, had already instituted a civil suit dated 27- 28/08/2021 seeking cancellation and setting aside of the sale deed and Power of Attorney before the competent Civil Court vide Civil Suit No.742 of 2021 (RCSA). The dispute between the parties was thus essentially civil in nature and is/was sub-judice before the Civil Court. Furthermore, the complainant failed to disclose that her husband is a practicing Advocate who was present at the Registrar's Office along with his associate, Shri Vijay Pal, at the time of execution. This demonstrates that the transaction was executed with full knowledge and consent.

Accordingly, in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petition is allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No. 257/2022 registered at Police Station University, District Gwalior (M.P.), for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC, insofar as it relates to the present petitioners, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

It is clarified that the civil proceedings, if pending, between the parties shall continue in accordance with law and shall remain uninfluenced by any observations made herein.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6177

14 MCRC-20520-2023

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn*

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02d 9d593f, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7064434, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=61b9d129971d2ea4fd4455ed49ea436ea65e26164beeed89153 191c56e98ce21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.02.24 11:29:18 +05'30'