Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 689 (MP)

Prakash Agrawal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-06-24

J.P.GUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT J P Gupta, J. - This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashment of proceedings of S.T. No.419/13 pending in the court of 9th Additional Session Judge, Jabalpur arising out of Crime No. 252/12 registered at Police Station Omti, Jabalpur, for the offence pun-ishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC so far as it is against the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that against the petitioner and other co-accused persons charge sheet of aforesaid crime has been filed before the Trial court concerned, in which, the story of the prosecution is that house nos. 2155 and 2157; di-version seat no. 115; area 30390 sq. ft situated at Subhadra Kumar Chouhan ward, Wright Town, Jabalpur, is the property of Municipal Co-rporation, Jabalpur and till 1970 the aforesaid property was leased out in favour of one Saiyad Abdul Gafoor and notices were served on his legal heirs and they filed application for renewal of the lease and his legal heirs had deposited the tax till 2007 and Saiyad Wahidul Haq who was legal heir of Saiyad Abdul Gafoor filed another application for renewal of the lease on 14.11.1971 and on 29.8.1995. Accordingly, Ashok Kumar or his father had no interest or title in the property but accused Ashok Kumar, Ravindra Sukheja, Anirudh Sukheja, Baldeoraj Anand and Daljeet Mehta, on the basis of the forged sale certificate purported to be issued on 30.6.1966 by Managing Officer of the Evacuee property, Indore and on the basis of these forged documents, they obtained fresh lease deed executed in favour of Ashok Kumar and after that, they sold the land to Rajesh Juneja and Tarachand Khatri getting crores of rupees. In the aforesaid affair of the transaction, the present petitioner was also conspirator with other co-accused persons as initially he claimed his right to purchase the property on the basis of agreement written by Saiyad Wahidul Haq and his daughters and also filed civil suit and other litigations and objected the proceedings initiated on behalf of Ashok Kumar before the Municipal Corporation and also objected registration of the sale deed in favour of Rajesh Juneja and Tarachand Khatri but later on, without any rational ground, he withdrew the objections and litigations and submitted his NOC for registration of the sale deed in favour of Rajesh Juneja and Tarachand Khatri. Accordingly, all the ac-cused persons on the basis of forged documents have caused injustice to the public as the property is vested to the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. 3. It is submitted that in this case there is no iota of material to infer that the petitioner was indulged with the other accused persons in getting the property or selling it to third person as his claim, litigation and objection were against all other accused persons. It is very strange that because he withdrew objections and litigations, it has been alleged that he committed aforesaid crime while the property was under litigations, therefore, he withdrew his objections and litigations which was his right and on the basis of withdrawal of the litigations and objections it cannot be said that he was having nexus with other accused persons. Hence, the aforesaid proceeding against the petitioner is contrary to law and causing injustice and if the same is continued it would be the misuse of the process of the court. Thus, the same be quashed. 4. Learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that looking to the conduct of the petitioner it cannot be said that he has no connivance with other accused persons to defeat the interest of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur with a view to get share in the property. 5. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the present petitioner was claiming his right to purchase the property on the basis of the agreements to purchase the land from legal heir of Saiyad Abdul Gafoor, Saiyad Wahidul Haq and after death of Saiyad Wahidul Haq, his daughter and in this regard, a civil suit was filed and during the litigation, Ashok Kumar came in picture claiming his right and title over the property on the basis of sale certificate and succeeded to get fresh lease deed executed in his favour and also got mutation in his favour and these proceedings were objected by the petitioner and when the sale deeds were to be executed in favour of Rajesh Juneja and Tarachand Khatri on behalf of Ashok Kumar with the connivance of the other accused persons, the petitioner filed objections but on 24.3.2012 he withdrew the civil suit filed for specific performance of contract. 6. 6. In view of this court, merely on the basis of aforesaid acts of the petitioner, it cannot be inferred that he had any connivance with accused Ashok Kumar and his companions to prepare forged sale certificate, on the basis of which, co-accused Ashok Kumar got fresh lease deed executed in his favour by Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and thereafter sold out the property to third person. On record there is no other material to establish or suggest that the petitioner was indulged with other accused persons in the aforesaid activity. Hence, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for commission of any offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC or any other offence on the basis of charge sheet. If the prosecution is continued against the petitioner it would amount to misuse of process of the court. 7. The scope of section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been discussed by the Apex court in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2014) 7 SCC 215 extensively. The relevant paras are reproduced herein :- 10. Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either side, we deem it appropriate to have a thorough look at Section 482 CrPC, which reads: "482.Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." A bare perusal of Section 482 CrPC makes it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard-and-fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straitjacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. 11. It is no doubt true that there can be no straitjacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. 11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269 [ : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC and how cautious and careful the approach of the courts should be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that judgment, which reads: (SCC p. 272, para 2) "2. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as the rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgement of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount". 12. This Court in a plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the courts under Section 482 CrPC. 12. This Court in a plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the courts under Section 482 CrPC. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 [: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 ] this Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under Section 482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated by this Court in (1) CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 591 [ : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045 ] , (2) Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 3 SCC 259 [ : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401 ] and (3) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122 [ : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283 ] . This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 122 [ : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283 ] observed that: The power under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of process of court, but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but, if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed. Also see Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72 [ : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 472 ] , SCC p. 95, para 43. 13. What emerges from the above judgments is that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case. The courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the court can exercise the power under Section 482 CrPC. The courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the court can exercise the power under Section 482 CrPC. While exercising the power under the provision, the courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact. 8. In view of the aforesaid case law and discussion made earlier, this petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the petition is allowed and the proceeding pending before the trial court as S.T. No.419/13 arising out of Crime no.252/12 against petitioner Prakash Agrawal is hereby quashed and he is exonerated of the aforesaid charges. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below for information and its compliance.