Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1647 (MP)

Sanjay Kumar v. State of M. P.

2014-12-11

ALOK VERMA

body2014
ORDER 1. This application is filed under section 482 of CrPC for quashment of the FIR dated 6.9.2009 registered by Police Station – Rawji Bazar, Indore in Crime No.350/2009. 2. The relevant facts for disposal of this case are that the present applicant was alloted a plot bearing No.93 in Anop Nagar, Indore by respondent No.5 – Anop Nagar Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha. This plot, it is stated that, was earlier sold by the society to one Prakashchandra on 25.10.1980. Said Prakashchandra sold this plot to one Kulwant Singh through his attorney named as B.S. Choray. Subsequently, in respect of this plot attorney was given to respondent No.4. It is stated that after the plot was alloted to said Prakashchandra, he obtained building permission from Municipal Corporation, Indore and remained in possession of the disputed plot. Subsequently, as Prakashchandra transferred the plot without payment of full amount to 3rd party and without prior permission of the society, his allotment and sale deed executed in his favour by the society was cancelled after giving him a notice and the plot was alloted to the present applicant. The present applicant also obtained building permission from Municipal Corporation, Indore. 3. The present FIR was lodged by the respondent No.4 before Police Station – Rawji Bazar stating therein that respondent No.4 is attorney of Kulwant Singh Son of Antar Singh, who purchased the plot from the original allotee Prakashchandra. Kulwant Singh purchased the plot through sale deed dated 31.8.1987. The plot is in possession of Kulwant Singh and he raised certain constructions on the plot. On 2.9.2009, the present applicant alongwith the other persons removed iron angles placed by him. When the present applicant was called by Police Station – M.I.G., he submitted forged sale deed and other documents and he claimed that he was the owner of the plot. According to the forged sale deed, plot was purchased by him through one Lalsingh Malviya, who was Secretary of Anop Nagar Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha, respondent No.5. According to the averments made in the FIR, the said plot was already sold to Prakashchandra in the year 1980 and, therefore, society had no right to transfer the plot to the present applicant. According to the averments made in the FIR, the said plot was already sold to Prakashchandra in the year 1980 and, therefore, society had no right to transfer the plot to the present applicant. The present applicant was also not a member of the society and Lalsingh Malviya was not Secretary of the society at the relevant time and, therefore, they are claiming ownership on the basis of forged documents. 4. On such complaint being filed, the crime as aforesaid was registered by Police Station – Rawji Bazar for quashment of which, this application is filed on the ground that the present applicant was alloted the plot by the society. Lalsingh Malviya was the Secretary of the society. All the documents are properly executed and, therefore, the ingredients of crime which was registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are not present in the averments of the FIR itself and, therefore, the FIR should be quashed. 5. The society, respondent No.5, in its reply, stated that the FIR has been lodged by respondent No.4 on false and frivolous grounds. On 28.7.1997, Lalsingh Malviya was acting as Secretary of Society. The sale deed was executed in favour of the applicant by registered sale deed on which, signature of the present applicant was not appended because as per rules prevailing in those days, presence of the allottee before the Registrar was not necessary. It is further stated that the attesting witness Vinod Verma signed the document and after 12 years his statement to the police that he did not signed the document is, unfortunate. It is further stated by the society that the original allottee Prakashchandra violated the condition of the allotment and, therefore, his allotment was properly cancelled/annulled and thereafter, the plot was allotted to the present applicant. 6. Respondent No.4, it its reply states that the society was not competent to allot the plot in favour of the present applicant. On his complaint, the Joint Commissioner, Cooperative Society, Indore and Dy. Commissioner, Cooperative Society, Indore made an inquiry and found that the sale deed of the applicant was forged. The report of the said authorities is appended with his reply as Annexure-R(4)/13 and 14. Similarly, according to him, Superintendent of Police also inquired into the matter and it was found that the applicant with connivance of the society's office bearers tried to grab the plot. The report of the said authorities is appended with his reply as Annexure-R(4)/13 and 14. Similarly, according to him, Superintendent of Police also inquired into the matter and it was found that the applicant with connivance of the society's office bearers tried to grab the plot. According to him, Kulwant Singh was the only lawful owner of the plot. He is in possession of the plot. He is the member of Anop Nagar Rahawasi Sangh and also paid Rs.20,000/- for construction of the roads. It is also stated that the applicant was minor in the year 1997 when the said sale deed was executed in his favour and on such grounds, he stated that the present applicant is responsible for offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 7. I have gone through the documents filed by both the parties. 8. It is true that, on the copy filed by the respondent No.5 of the sale deed in favour of the present applicant, there is no signature of the present applicant however, so far as the copy of the sale deed in favour of the original allottee Prakashchand is concerned, which is annexed as Annexure-D-5/1, signature of the allottee Prakashchand are there and also in the last line of the sale deed, it is specifically mentioned that the deed was signed by the seller and the purchaser. Similar averments are present on the sale deed in favour of the present applicant. As such, it cannot be accepted that the present applicant did not signed the sale deed and no such rule is shown to this Court that in the year 1997, presence of the purchaser was not required. 9. However, going through the whole matter, I find that all the ingredients of forgery and cheating are missing. The matter was inquired into by the Dy. Commissioner Cooperative Society, District – Indore. His report is filed by the respondent No.4 as Annexure – R(4)/14. 9. However, going through the whole matter, I find that all the ingredients of forgery and cheating are missing. The matter was inquired into by the Dy. Commissioner Cooperative Society, District – Indore. His report is filed by the respondent No.4 as Annexure – R(4)/14. The observations made by the officer in its report are quoted below:- **tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr tkap izfrosnu vuqlkj laLFkk }kjk Hkw[k.M Øekad 93 dk vkacVu o jftLVªh o"kZ 1980 eas laLFkk lnL; Jh izdk'k pUnz ljkQ dks dh xbZ FkhA ftls Jh ljkQ }kjk Jh dqycUn flag varj flag dks fnukad 31-8-1987 dks foØ; fd;k x;k gSA laLFkk v/;{k }kjk jftLVªh dh dk;Zokgh dks fu;eksa dk mYya?ku djus ij Jh izdk'k pUnz ljkQ dks fd;k x;k vkoaVu Lor% fujLr ekuk x;k gSA fdUrq Hkw[k.M okil ysus dh ,d fuf'pr izfØ;k gS] ftldk ikyu laLFkk }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh iwoZ eas dh xbZ jftLVªh dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djk;k x;k gSA tkap vf/kdkjh us laLFkk }kjk Hkw[k.M Øekad 93 vuwi uxj dh jftLVªh Jh lat; dqekj flrykuh ds i{k Øekad&1 vk 2597 fnukad 28-7-1997 dks dh xbZ jftLVªh dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh izLrkfor dh xbZ gSA mijksDr ifjos{; esa vkidks lq>ko fn;k tkrk gS fd jftLVªh 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djus dk vf/kdkj bl foHkkx dks ugha gksus ls vki ekuuh; flfoy U;k;ky; eas okn nk;j dj oS/kkfud mipkj izkIr djus ,oa nks"kh O;fDr;ksa ds fo#) lacaf/kr iqfyl Fkkus eas ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ dj vko';d dk;Zokgh dj ldrs gSA** 10. In my opinion, the correct legal situation is stated in the report. This is purely a matter of civil nature. No intention to deceive forgery can be assigned to the present applicant in the factual background of the case. The society in its reply, supports the contention of the present applicant that the plot was alloted to him after completing due formalities. It is nowhere asserted by the society that the present applicant did something illegal to grab the plot. All the signatures were admitted by the persons excepting the attesting witness, however, when the society admits execution of the documents in favour of the present applicant, at this stage, it cannot be assumed that the sale deed is forged. Unless, before a civil Court it is proved that the registered sale deed in favour of present applicant is forged, no action in a criminal Court can be initiated. Unless, before a civil Court it is proved that the registered sale deed in favour of present applicant is forged, no action in a criminal Court can be initiated. In such situation, in my opinion, the matter is purely of civil nature. Registration of the present crime against the present applicant is an abuse of process of law. The FIR, so far as it relates to the present applicant, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.350/2009 registered by Police Station – Rawji Bazar, Indore under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in respect of the present applicant – Sanjay Sitlani Son of Narayandas Sitlani is quashed. He is discharged from the charges under the aforementioned sections and all other investigation and proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR in respect of the present applicant are also quashed. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of. S. C. Bagadiya with D. K. Chhabra for applicant; S. K. Vyas with Harshvardhan Pathak for respondent No.4; P. K. Shukla for respondent No.5; R. S. Chouhan, Government Advocate for respondent/State.