[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Kumar Singh Bhadouria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
1 MCRC-21767-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21767 of 2021
SHIV KUMAR SINGH BHADOURIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raghuwanshi - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Chetan
Kanungo - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Asha Ram Shivhare - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
RESERVED ON :- 24/02/2026
DELIVERED ON :- 12/03/2026
ORDER
The present petition, under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of CrPC) has
been filed by the petitioner - Shiv Kumar Bhadoriya seeking quashment of
an F.I.R. dated 10.12.2020 bearing Crime No.565 of 2020 registered at
Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior for offence punishable
under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC alongwith all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
2. As per prosecution story, a complaint was submitted by the
complainant-Rajendra Pal Singh Sengar before Station House Officer, Police
Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior, alleging that the accused
Shivkumar Singh Bhadauria (present petitioner), a Government School
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
2 MCRC-21767-2021
Teacher and neighbour of the complainant's native village, induced the
complainant to purchase a plot and an initial advance amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- was paid in cash at the complainant's residence at Pinto Park in
the presence of Naresh Singh Bhadauria and two other persons. Thereafter,
on different dates, the accused received further amounts in cash and through
cheques totaling Rs.35,00,000/-. It was further alleged that the accused
personally handed over the said amount to Rajendra Agrawal and on
04.07.2013, got executed an agreement to sell in respect of a plot ad-
measuring approximately 2100 sq.ft. (30x70 feet), situated at Sabia Vilas
Paras Vihar Colony, Main Jhansi Road, for a total sale consideration of
Rs.40,00,000/-. The remaining Rs.5,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of
execution of the sale deed, which the accused had assured would be paid by
him to Rajendra Agrawal at the time of registration. Subsequently, on
27.08.2013, a consent letter was executed by Amar Singh, claiming to be the
owner of one-third share of the said land; however, the said consent letter
was later found to be forged. When a dispute arose at the time of boundary
demarcation and possession, a public notice was published in the newspaper
'Dainik Bhaskar' on 24.10.2013 through an advocate. A rebuttal notice was
published on 27.10.2013, casting serious doubts on the validity of the
transaction. Upon discovering the fraud, the complainant demanded return of
his money from the accused. The accused initially refunded Rs.3,00,000/- by
cheque on 08.07.2013 and Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque on 16.07.2013. After
about one year, under social pressure, the accused issued three cheques of
Rs.5,00,000/- each on 19.09.2014, totaling Rs.15,00,000/-. Thus, in all,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
3 MCRC-21767-2021
Rs.19,00,000/- was refunded, while the remaining Rs.16,00,000/- was not
repaid. It was further alleged that whenever the complainant demanded the
balance amount, the accused threatened him with false cases and defamation
in order to avoid repayment. All monetary transactions were conducted by
the accused Shivkumar Singh Bhadauria (present petitioner). By inducing the
complainant to part with a substantial sum of money, executed false and
fabricated documents, and failed to repay the remaining amount, the accused
committed acts of cheating, deception, and criminal breach of trust. On the
basis of such allegations, alleged F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner.
3. Shri MPS Raghuwanshi - learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri
Chetan Kanungo - learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned F.I.R. and arising therefrom are a manifest abuse of the process of
law and deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. At the very threshold, it was submitted that the substratum of the
dispute arises from agreements to sell relating to immovable property and
alleged non-performance of contractual obligations. The complainant's
grievance pertains to execution of sale deeds, payment of sale consideration,
and refund of money allegedly advanced. These are issues that fall squarely
within the domain of civil law. The rights and liabilities of the parties, if any,
flow from contractual arrangements and are enforceable, if at all, before a
competent civil court by way of a suit for specific performance, cancellation
of documents, or recovery of money.
5. It was further submitted that the settled position of law is that to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
4 MCRC-21767-2021
constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, it must be shown
that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception of
the transaction. A mere subsequent failure to honour a promise, or inability
to perform a contractual obligation, does not ipso facto amount to cheating.
The distinction between breach of contract and the offence of cheating has
been consistently emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. In Kunti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2023) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 109, the Apex Court, dealing with a dispute arising out of an
agreement to sell, categorically observed that where the dispute is entirely
with respect to property transactions and buying and selling thereof, the
criminal process cannot be permitted to be used to settle civil scores. It was
reiterated that unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is demonstrated at the
inception of the transaction, criminal proceedings for cheating are
unsustainable. It was further observed that a criminal hue cannot be
unjustifiably lent to a civil natured issue.
7. The same principle finds authoritative expression in Rajib Ranjan v.
R. Vijaykumar reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 513, wherein the
Apex Court deprecated the growing tendency in commercial and property
transactions to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Apex
Court, while referring to earlier decisions, held that criminal proceedings are
not a short cut to other remedies available in law and the courts must
carefully examine whether a matter essentially of civil nature has been given
the cloak of a criminal offence. It was emphasized that the inherent powers
under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
5 MCRC-21767-2021
of court and to secure the ends of justice, particularly where a complainant
seeks to apply pressure through criminal prosecution in matters that are civil
in character.
8. In Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 823, the Apex Court was confronted with a situation where,
despite the dispute being rooted in a property transaction and earlier findings
that the matter was civil in nature, the complainant sought to pursue criminal
prosecution under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The Apex Court set aside the
proceedings, holding that criminal procedure cannot be used to apply
pressure for recovery of money or enforcement of contractual obligations.
The Court underscored that it is the duty of courts to exercise great caution
in issuing process, especially when the matter is essentially civil, and that
failure to do so results in breakdown of rule of law and misuse of legal
process.
9. Likewise, in R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana reported in
(2023) 2 Supreme Court Cases 195, the Apex Court emphasized that where
the validity of a sale deed or the performance of obligations under a property
transaction is in question, the proper forum is the civil court. It was cautioned
that although a civil transaction may sometimes have a criminal texture, the
Courts must carefully examine whether the dispute, in substance, is civil and
whether the essential ingredients of the alleged criminal offences are made
out. If civil remedies are available and have been adopted, criminal
proceedings ought not to be permitted to continue merely to harass the
opposite party.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
6 MCRC-21767-2021
10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, it is
submitted that the F.I.R. does not disclose the foundational requirement of
dishonest intention at inception on the part of the petitioner as there was no
specific allegation that at the time of entering into the alleged transaction, the
petitioner had any pre-existing intention to deceive the complainant and the
allegations, taken at their highest, only indicate that the transaction did not
culminate in execution of sale deed or money was not refunded. Such
allegations, without more, constitute a breach of contract, not a criminal
offence.
11. It was further submitted that prior to registration of the impugned
F.I.R., the respondent No.2/complainant had already set the criminal law in
motion by submitting a detailed written complaint dated 06.01.2014 before
the Station House Officer, Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior. In the said
complaint, the respondent No.2/complainant categorically alleged that one
Rajendra Agrawal had fraudulently induced him to part with a sum of
Rs.35,00,000/- pursuant to an Agreement to Sell dated 04.07.2013 in respect
of a plot situated at Sakhiyavilas (Paras Vihar Colony), Gwalior, and the
remaining Rs.5,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale
deed. It was further alleged that upon publication of a public notice dated
27.10.2013 and receipt of a rebuttal notice dated 29.10.2013, the
complainant came to know that the said plot did not belong to Rajendra
Agrawal and the agreement had been fraudulently executed. The grievance,
therefore, was essentially non-performance of an agreement and alleged
misrepresentation regarding title. Most significantly, in the entire complaint
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
7 MCRC-21767-2021
dated 06.01.2014, there is not even a whisper of allegation against the
present petitioner and the allegations were exclusively and specifically
directed against one Rajendra Agrawal. The role attributed in the said
complaint, the receipt of money, and the alleged inducement were confined
to the said Rajendra Agrawal alone. This foundational document, being the
earliest version of the complainant, completely exonerates the present
petitioner from any involvement at the inception of the transaction. The
subsequent attempt to rope in the petitioner years later is therefore clearly an
afterthought and lacks bona fides.
12. It was further submitted that the agreement, which forms the
substratum of the dispute, was executed on 27.05.2013 and pertains to land
situated at Village Lalitpur, behind Jiwaji Club, Gwalior and the said
agreement is the primary document relied upon by the complainant as the
alleged incriminating instrument. Any dispute as to its validity,
enforceability, or the title of the executant is squarely within the jurisdiction
of the civil court. The determination of whether the executant had title,
whether the agreement is void or voidable, or whether the complainant is
entitled to refund or specific performance are issues requiring adjudication
on evidence in civil proceedings.
13. It was further submitted that pursuant to the complaint dated
06.01.2014, the matter was subjected to enquiry by the police authorities and
one enquiry conducted in the years 2018 examined the allegations and the
documents relied upon by the complainant. After due consideration, the said
enquuiry concluded that the dispute was civil in nature and did not disclose
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
8 MCRC-21767-2021
commission of any cognizable criminal offence. The complainant was
accordingly advised to seek appropriate remedy before the competent civil
court. These findings were never challenged by the complainant at the
relevant time. The fact that the enquiry, conducted over a period of time,
arrived at the conclusion that the matter was civil in character, is of
considerable significance. It demonstrates that even upon scrutiny by the
investigating machinery, no ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust,
or forgery were found to be made out. The impugned F.I.R., lodged
thereafter on substantially the same set of facts, amounts to a second attempt
to give criminal colour to what had already been determined to be a civil
dispute. Such repeated invocation of criminal jurisdiction, without any new
material, is manifestly mala fide.
14. It was further submitted that the initial grievance was directed
solely against another individual and the subsequent implication of the
petitioner after considerable lapse of time clearly indicates an afterthought
and an attempt to widen the net of criminal liability to exert pressure. Such
belated arraignment, in absence of fresh incriminating material, reflects mala
fide intention and abuse of process. There is no material establishing
entrustment of property and subsequent dishonest misappropriation so as to
attract Section 406 IPC. Similarly, the ingredients of forgery under Sections
467 and 468 IPC, namely making of a false document with intent to cause
damage or support a claim, are not substantiated by cogent material. Mere
assertion by the complainant that the agreements are forged does not suffice;
such questions of genuineness and validity are matters of evidence to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
9 MCRC-21767-2021
adjudicated by a civil court.
15. It was also relevant that the complainant had efficacious civil
remedies available under law. A suit for specific performance, cancellation
of document, declaration, or recovery of money could have been instituted
within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act and the
criminal process cannot be permitted to become a substitute for civil
adjudication, particularly when the civil claim may have become time-
barred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently disapproved attempts to
revive or pressurize settlement of civil disputes through criminal
prosecution.
16. In the totality of circumstances, the dispute between the parties is
civil in nature, arising out of contractual obligations relating to immovable
property and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent. The
implication of the petitioner appears to be mala fide and an afterthought.
Continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in grave prejudice and
would amount to permitting the criminal justice system to be used as an
instrument of coercion. It was, therefore, submitted that this Court may be
pleased to quash the impugned F.I.R., and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom against the petitioner, in order to secure the ends of justice
and to prevent abuse of the process of law.
17. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the
learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that the present petition under
Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of the impugned F.I.R. is premature,
misconceived and liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
10 MCRC-21767-2021
18. At the outset, it was submitted that the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution and only in cases where
the allegations contained in the F.I.R., even if taken at their face value and
accepted in entirety, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable
offence. At this stage, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous
appreciation of evidence, nor is it expected to adjudicate disputed questions
of fact. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations is a matter for
investigation and trial.
19. It was further submitted that the impugned F.I.R. discloses specific
and serious allegations that the complainant was induced to part with a
substantial sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- on the basis of representations made in
relation to ownership and transferability of the property in question. It was
alleged that the Agreement to Sell was executed despite the executant
lacking valid title, and the complainant was misled into believing that lawful
ownership would be conveyed. The failure to execute the sale deed and the
non-refund of the amount despite repeated demands are alleged to be part of
a deliberate and dishonest scheme. These allegations, if accepted at face
value, prima facie attract the ingredients of offences punishable under
Sections 420 and 406 IPC, apart from other allied offences.
20. It was further submitted that the mere existence of a civil remedy
does not bar criminal prosecution when the allegations disclose the essential
ingredients of a criminal offence and a civil transaction may also contain a
criminal element. The question whether there was fraudulent or dishonest
intention at the inception of the transaction cannot be conclusively
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
11 MCRC-21767-2021
determined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Such intention is to be
inferred from the conduct of the parties, surrounding circumstances and
evidence collected during investigation. To hold at this stage that the dispute
is purely civil would amount to pre-judging the matter.
21. It was further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that a
police enquiry conducted in 2018 had concluded the dispute to be civil in
nature is misconceived, as the said enquiry was preliminary and
administrative in character and did not result in any judicial adjudication or
binding determination. A preliminary enquiry does not create a legal bar
against subsequent registration of an F.I.R. if the complaint discloses
cognizable offences and the investigating agency is under a statutory
obligation to register an F.I.R. upon disclosure of a cognizable offence, and
such obligation cannot be curtailed on the basis of earlier opinions formed
during enquiry. Similarly, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the
complaint dated 06.01.2014 to contend that he was not named therein does
not absolve him at this stage and the said complaint may not have contained
a complete account of all persons involved. It was not uncommon in cases of
property transactions and alleged fraud that the full extent of participation of
various persons became evident only upon deeper scrutiny and investigation.
The subsequent implication of the petitioner, if based on material gathered
during investigation, cannot be dismissed as an afterthought without proper
examination of the evidence.
22. It was further submitted that the complainant has suffered grave
financial loss and has been deprived of a substantial amount of money on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
12 MCRC-21767-2021
account of the acts and representations of the accused persons. The
allegation is not a mere breach of contract simpliciter, but one of deliberate
misrepresentation regarding title and inducement to part with money.
Whether the accused had knowledge of the alleged lack of title, whether
there was active collusion or conspiracy, and whether there was dishonest
intention at the inception are all factual matters that require thorough
investigation and adjudication at trial.
23. It was further submitted that quashing the F.I.R. at this nascent
stage would stifle a legitimate prosecution and deprive the investigating
agency of the opportunity to collect and place relevant material before the
trial court. This Court, while exercising inherent powers, ought not to
conduct a mini-trial or weigh the sufficiency of evidence. So long as the
allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences and require
investigation, interference is unwarranted.
24. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that this Court
may be pleased to dismiss the petition for quashment and permit the
investigation and subsequent proceedings to continue in accordance with
law, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all permissible defences at the
appropriate stage before the competent court.
25. Having bestowed its anxious consideration to the pleadings on
record, the documents annexed thereto, the case diary, and the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds
to determine whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure ought to be exercised in the facts of the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
13 MCRC-21767-2021
case.
26. At the outset, it must be observed that the inherent power
preserved under Section 482 CrPC is not an appellate or revisional
jurisdiction, but a constitutional safeguard intended to prevent abuse of the
process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. Though such power is
to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, it is equally well settled
that where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to
harassment, oppression, or misuse of the criminal justice machinery, the
High Court would not only be justified but duty-bound to intervene.
27. The factual background reveals that the genesis of the dispute lies
in an Agreement to Sell allegedly executed in the year 2013 in respect of
immovable property situated at Gwalior and the complainant alleged that he
parted with a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- pursuant to such agreement, believing
that valid title would be conveyed. The earliest written complaint dated
06.01.2014, addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station Jhansi
Road, Gwalior, forms the foundational narrative of the complainant and a
careful perusal of the said complaint demonstrated that the allegations were
directed exclusively against one Rajendra Agrawal and the present petitioner
was not named, nor was any role attributed to him, directly or indirectly.
This omission in the earliest version is not a minor inconsistency but a
material circumstance that cannot be brushed aside.
28. The record shows that the present applicant was not implicated in
the earliest stages of the dispute, and there is no material on record to suggest
his involvement at the inception of the transaction. The allegations against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
14 MCRC-21767-2021
the present applicant arose only at a later stage, without any fresh
incriminating material indicating dishonest or fraudulent intent. There is no
evidence to demonstrate that the present applicant was a party to the alleged
agreement or received any money, and the dispute, in substance, remains
civil in nature, relating to contractual obligations and title to immovable
property.
29. The subsequent registration of the impugned F.I.R., on
substantially identical allegations and without disclosure of any fresh
material demonstrating criminal intent at inception, raises serious concerns.
The law does not prohibit registration of a fresh F.I.R. where new facts
emerge. However, in the present case, there is no material on record
indicating that any new or distinct incriminating fact came to light after the
earlier enquiry. The impugned F.I.R. appears to be a reiteration of the earlier
grievance, now expanded to implicate the present petitioner.
30. The essential question, therefore, is whether the allegations, taken
at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence against
the Petitioner, or whether they merely reflect a civil dispute given a criminal
colour.
31. The Apex Court in Rajib Ranjan v. R. Vijaykumar (supra) has
categorically observed that courts must guard against the growing tendency
of converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases in order to exert
pressure for settlement. It was emphasized that criminal proceedings are not a
short cut to enforce civil claims and that inherent powers must be exercised
to prevent abuse of process where a matter essentially civil in nature is given
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
15 MCRC-21767-2021
a cloak of criminality.
33. In R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana (supra), the Apex
Court reiterated that while a civil transaction may occasionally possess a
criminal facet, the High Court must examine whether the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences are made out and whether the dispute is,
in substance, civil. If the dispute pertains to validity of sale deeds, title to
property, or performance of contractual obligations, such issues are to be
adjudicated by civil courts upon appreciation of evidence.
34. Likewise, in Kunti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), it was held
that a breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the very
inception of the transaction. The Court cautioned that where the dispute is
entirely with respect to buying and selling of property, a criminal hue cannot
be unjustifiably lent to what is essentially a civil issue.
35. More recently, in Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra),
the Apex Court quashed criminal proceedings arising from a property
transaction, observing that criminal law cannot be employed as a tool to
recover money or to apply pressure in disputes that are fundamentally civil.
The Court underscored that failure to exercise caution in such cases results
in breakdown of the rule of law and misuse of the legal process.
36. Applying these authoritative pronouncements to the present case,
this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner do not disclose the
foundational requirement of dishonest intention at the inception of the
transaction. The dispute revolves around the execution of an Agreement to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
16 MCRC-21767-2021
Sell, alleged deficiency of title, and non-refund of money. These are matters
intrinsically connected with contractual rights and obligations. The
determination of whether the executant had valid title, whether the agreement
is void or voidable, whether the complainant is entitled to refund or specific
performance, and whether there was any misrepresentation are all issues
requiring adjudication upon evidence in civil proceedings.
37. There is no prima facie material demonstrating that the present
petitioner made any false representation to the complainant at the inception
of the transaction or he was entrusted with property and dishonestly
misappropriated the same. The absence of any allegation against the
petitioner in the earliest complaint dated 06.01.2014 further weakens the
prosecution's case insofar as he is concerned. The belated implication of the
petitioner, after prior enquiry had concluded the matter to be civil in nature,
strongly suggests an afterthought.
38. This Court is mindful that at the stage of quashing, it cannot
conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence. However, it is
equally bound to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations, on their
face, constitute the alleged offences. In the considered view of this Court, the
allegations do not transcend the realm of civil dispute and permitting the
criminal proceedings to continue would result in undue harassment and
would amount to allowing the criminal justice system to be used as a
mechanism for coercion in a private contractual dispute.
39. In the totality of circumstances, including the prior police enquiry
of 2018 concluding the dispute to be civil in nature, the absence of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7696
17 MCRC-21767-2021
allegations against the petitioner in the foundational complaint of
06.01.2014, and the lack of prima facie material establishing the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences, this Court is satisfied that the
continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to abuse
of the process of law.
40. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent misuse
of the criminal process, the petition filed by Shiv Kumar Singh Bhadouria
under Section 482 CrPC is allowed. The impugned F.I.R. bearing Crime
No.565 of 2020 registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District
Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC alongwith
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to the
present petitioner, stand quashed. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
