Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 614 (MP)

Shahid S/o Mohammad Yunus v. State of M. P.

2018-07-11

S.K.PALO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.K. PALO, J. 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed to quash the Criminal Complaint being RCT No. 10467/2015, filed by the complainant/ respondent No. 2 against the petitioners for offences under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal. 2. The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant-Ramshri Bai inherited the property belonged to Shri Ram Prasad including Khasra Nos. 95, 96, 226, 227 and 228/1, area admeasuring 7.475 hectares. The petitioners inherited one-seventh of one-half of the land i.e. 0.5339 hectares equivalent to 1.32 acres land, on the basis of the judgment dated 22-2-2012 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Bhopal. The complainant is an illiterate village lady. The petitioner No. 2-Aleem S/o Mohammad Iqwal proposed to the complainant that being woman, she is not able to visit Bhopal repeatedly for attending the appeal. Therefore, he proposed to give Rs. 6,20,000/- in lieu of a power of attorney and after final judgment in appeal whatever land she receives, will be registered and price of the same will be given to her. On this proposal, the complainant executed the power of attorney in favour of petitioner No. 1-Shahid for representing her in the case. The accused, on 12-4-2012, stating it to be a power of attorney to participate in the proceedings of appeal got the signature of the complainant on a document, which is actually the power of attorney for sale of the land of the complainant for an amount of Rs. 14,95,000/-. The complainant was given Rs. 6,20,000/- by Demand Draft and the power of attorney for sale of land was prepared in favour of the accused-Mohd. Shahid. The cost of the land is actually Rs. 2 crores. But by the forged power of attorney, the same has been disposed of by the accused persons. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 16-9-2015, took cognizance for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners/accused persons have filed this application for quashing of the above complaint case on the ground that the power of attorney executed by the complainant is genuine one and the same was valid upto 12-4-2013. 3. The petitioners/accused persons have filed this application for quashing of the above complaint case on the ground that the power of attorney executed by the complainant is genuine one and the same was valid upto 12-4-2013. The agreement to sale was extended to 7-3-2009 by the complainant. All the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is purely a civil dispute and has been given the colour of criminal proceeding. Facts and circumstances of the case do not constitute any offence. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class failed to consider the material, therefore, the complaint case, if not quashed, would cause hardship to the petitioners. The complainant party, have impleaded the petitioners as accused to harass them, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. 4. On behalf of the respondent the petition is vehemently opposed and it is contended that it is not simply the matter of civil nature. The petitioners with the criminal intent forged the power of attorney and sold the land of the complainant. Hence, the criminal complaint has been filed, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are falsely implicated. The order taking cognizance does not call for any interference. 5. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in the case of Praveen Kabra @ Jitendra Kabra vs. State of M.P. 2016 (3) MPWN 114 , Kundanlal Jain and Others vs. Virendra Singh Solanki, 2016 (1) JLJ 28 . In the case of Praveen Kabra (supra) there was lacking of ingredients of cheating or misrepresentation and, therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Hence, the trial Court was directed to drop the proceeding. In the case of Kundanlal Jain (supra) the sale deed was executed in favour of one Kamla Bai, which is not a forged document. The original owner had no authority to sale, therefore, the petitioners or the original owners and the purchaser had no intention to cheat anybody, therefore, it appears purely of civil nature case. Hence, the petitioners were discharged. 6. In the case of Dr. Rini Johar and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 2679 the Apex Court has held that there was no impersonation. However, it was opined to show that the petitioner had an intention to cheat. Therefore it was clear dispute of purely civil nature. Hence, the petitioners were discharged. 6. In the case of Dr. Rini Johar and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 2679 the Apex Court has held that there was no impersonation. However, it was opined to show that the petitioner had an intention to cheat. Therefore it was clear dispute of purely civil nature. Hence, the First Information Report was quashed. According to the complainant, because the accused persons proposing to give Rs. 2,20,000/- and further proceeded with the case before the Appellate Court, executed the power of attorney, but in reality this power of attorney was executed for sale of land of the complainant. In the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta, (2009) 1 SCC 516 the Apex Court has given the following guidelines:- “15. Proposition of law, which emerge from the said decisions are:- (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizance offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.” 7. In the present case, the complaint does make any averments so as to infer fraudulent or dishonest inducement having made by the accused persons and, pursuant to which, the complainant was about to part with her property. This averment prima facie make out a case. Hence, it cannot be termed as dispute of civil nature simplicitor. In the case of Vijayander Kumar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2014 (1) CCSC 423 it has been observed that only because civil remedy may also be available to the complainant, that itself cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceeding. 8. Hence, it cannot be termed as dispute of civil nature simplicitor. In the case of Vijayander Kumar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2014 (1) CCSC 423 it has been observed that only because civil remedy may also be available to the complainant, that itself cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceeding. 8. Keeping in view the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.