Dharmendra Kuishwaha vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant for quashing of charge-sheet (arising out of Crime No.169/2017

registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Satna) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the IPC.

As per prosecution case complainant Jagdish Kushwaha lodged a report which reads as thus :-

“fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ guqeku uxj ubZ cLrh okMZ dz0 15 lruk dk fuoklh gS izkFkhZ dh izkFkZuk fuEukuqlkj gS%&

1- ;g fd izkFkhZ foxr 10 o""kZ ls guqeku uxj ubZ cLrh lruk esa fuokljr gS iwoZ es fdjk;s ds edku es jgrk Fkk rFkk o""kZ 2012 ls viuk LFkkbZ edku cukdj

fuokljr gS izkFkhZ ds iMksl es gh Jhd`"".k f=ikBh ifjokj lfgr jgrs gS ftlls muls vPNh tku igpku gksdj muds ifjokjtu ,oa firk ls Hkh vPNh tku igpku gks xbZ

rFkk vPNs fo’okfJr ds laca/k cu x;sA

2- ;g fd Jhd`"".k f=ikBh us HkwriwoZ jktLo fujh{kd y{ehdkar f=ikBh ls izkFkhZ dh tku igpku djk nh rFkk Jhd`"".k f=ikBh us ;g crk;k fd ekStk fltgVk esa

5-00,0 tehu fcdkÅ gS rFkk ;g Hkh dgk fd eS ;g tehu ys jgk gwa dqN iSls de gS ftlls vki Hkh lk>hnkj cu tkvks rc Jhd`"".k f=ikBh dh ckr ij fo’okl

dj vius 8&10 fe=ks ds lkFk feydj Hkwfe dz; djus dks rS;kj gq;s rc Jhd`"".k f=ikBh us y{ehdkar f=ikBh ls feyok;k vkSj crk;k fd ;g iwoZ es fltgVk es gh

jktLo fujh{kd jgs gS bUgs tehu dh iwjh tkudkjh gS rc HkwriwoZ jktLo fujh{kd y{ehdkar f=ikBh us ekStk lksukSjk fLFkr vkjkth ua0&134@2@5 jdok

5-00,0 Hkwfe ds nLrkost [kljk vkfn fn[kk;k tks jkeujs’k rua;~ jkevkSrkj czkEg.k fuoklh d`ikyiqj ds uke ds Fks jktLo fujh{kd us Lo;a lkSnk r; fd;k

tks ikap ,dM jdcs dk lkSnk 75]00000@&:i;s esa r; gqvk rc Loa; 7]50000@& uxn ysdj bdjkjukek izkFkhZ ,oa Jhd`"".k rFkk /kesZUnz dq’kokgk]

uUnyky lkgw] d`"".kiky nkfg;k ds uke fnukad 25@07@11 dks fy[kk;k ftldh Nk;kizfr layXu gS ftles Hkwfe Lokeh jkeujs’k dh Hkh QksVks pLik gS

rFkk gLrk{kj gSA bl Hkwfe ds laca/k esa Jheku~ vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh j?kqjktuxj ds U;k;ky; dk iz0dz0&05 lh 129@10&11 vkns’k fnukad

13@12@10 dh lR;izfrfyfi Hkh fn[kkbZ Fkh vkSj mldh Nk;kizfr nh Fkh] ftldh Hkh izfr layXu gSA

3- ;g fd blh dze esa ekStk fltgVk fLFkr vkjkth ua0&135@1@2 jdok 5-00,0 dk Hkh lkSnk Jhd`"".k f=ikBh ds ek/;e ls HkwriwoZ jktLo fujh{kd y{ehdkar

f=ikBh ls eqcfyx 75]00000@& :i;s es r; gksdj fnukad 25@07@11 dks bdjkjukek csph dk djkrs gq;s 75]00000@& :i;s y{ehdkar f=ikBh }kjk fy;s x;sA

blh izdkj ghjkyky xkSre Hkwfe Lokeh ,oa jksfgr tSu firk iznhi dqekj tSu fu0 d`"".k dkyksuh fVdqfj;k Vksyk lruk ds lkFk y{eh izlkn f=ikBh jktLo fujh0 us

NydoV djrs gq, dkYifud uke lhrkjke fo’odekZ fu0ubZ cLrh d`ikyiqj dh tehu ua- 309@2 jdok 5 ,dM+ dk igys vuqcU/k mlds ckn fodz; i= rS;kj djkdj

fnukad 12-11-2012 dks jftLVªh vius lqfu;ksftr xokg /kesZUnz dq’kokgk ,oa uhjt xqIrk dks xokg ds :i esa j[kdj lEikfnr djk fn;k vkSj dqy 45 yk[k

:i;s Ny iwoZd ys fy;sA blh rjg y{eh izlkn f=ikBh us vius lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk lqfu;ksftr rjhds ls QthZ Hkw Lokeh ,oa QthZ nLrkost rS;kj dj eq>ls vkjkth

ua- 13@1@5 jdok 5 ,dM+ ds Hkwfe Lokeh jkeujs’k czkEg.k ,oa vkjkth ua- 135@1@2 jdok 5 ,dM+ ds eq>ls 22 yk[k 50 gtkj :i;s ,oa Hkw Lokeh

jke d`iky czkEg.k crkdj ,oa vkjkth ua- 329@342@2 jdok 5 ,dM+ dk Hkwfe Lokeh jkeukjk;.k fo’odekZ crkdj eq>ls 19 yk[k 40 gtkj :i;s ysdj

jftLVªh dysDVsªV lruk esa djok fy;k vkSj dkQh fnukas rd eq>s ewy jftLVªh ugh fn;sA rc eSus y{eh izlkn f=ikBh ls tc eSus ewy jftLVªh o

ukekUrj.k lEca/kh dkxtkr ekaxs rks cksys dh 10 yk[k :i;s dh O;oLFkk djks rc ge ukekUrj.k djk;saxsA rc eSa ukjkt gksdj muls dgk fd vki esjs nLrkost

okil dj nhft;s] rc y{eh izlkn f=ikBh us dgk fd eSa rqEgsa dksbZ dkxt ugha nwaxk rqEgsa tks djuk gks dj ysukA rc eSa iath;u dk;kZy; ls vkosnu nsdj

jftLVªh dh f}rh; izfr fudyok;k ckn esa eq>s lekpkj i=ksa ds ek/;e ls irk pyk fd ekStk fltgVk ,oa ekStk lksukSjk dh Hkwfe ds QthZ iV~Vs rS;kj gq,

gSA rc ls eSa yxkrkj Fkkuk] ,l-ih- dk;kZy; o jktLo foHkkx esa vkosnu nsrk jgk gS ysfdu esjh dksbZ lquokbZ ugh gqbZA jke ukjk;.k cjftLVªh ekStk lksukSjk esa gksus ls lEcaf/kr lHkh nLrkost y{eh izlkn f=ikBh ds }kjk fn[kkus ij eSa iw.kZ fo’okl dj fy;k fd ;g tehu jkeukjk;.k ds

iV~Vs o dCts dh gSA y{eh izlkn f=ikBh] fo|klkxj frokjh] jkts’k f=ikBh] jkeukjk;.k fo’odekZ] jked`iky czkEg.k] jkeujs’k czkEg.k] lhrkjke

ccukdj esjs ,oa vU; jksfgr tSu oxSjg ds lkFk QthZ vuqcU/k o jftLVªh djkbZ xbZA vr% mijksDr O;fDr;ksa ds fo:) vkijkf/kd izdj.k iath) dj eq>s U;k;

fnykus dh d`ik djsaAâ€​

On that Police registered Crime No.169/2017 at Police Station Satna Kotwali, District Satna, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467,

468, 471, 34 of the IPC against applicant Dharmendra Kushwaha and other co-accused persons namely Lakshmi Prasad Tripathi, Vidhya Sagar

Tiwari, Rajesh Tripathi, Ramnarayan Vishwakarma, Ramkripal Brahman, Ramnaresh Brahman, Sitaram Badhai and Neeraj Gupta and investigated

the matter. After investigation Police filed charge-sheet against coaccused Lakshmi Prasad Tripathi, Rajesh Tripathi and Neeraj Gupta stating that

investigation is going on against applicant and other co-accused persons namely Vidhya Sagar Tiwari, Ramnarayan Vishwakarma, Ramkripal

Brahman, Ramnaresh Brahman and Sitaram Badhai.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant himself is a victim of the fraud. On 23/06/2016 applicant alongwith

Rohit Jain, Atul Shukla and Rajesh Kumar Haswani had lodged a report to the effect that Anis Tekwani, Sitaram Vishwakarma, Mansingh Bisen and

Raviraj Tiwari committed fraud with them regarding agricultural land bearing survey No.309/2 area 5 acre situated at village Sinoura and complainant

Jagdish Kushwaha also wrote a letter to S.P. Satna on 20/03/2017 requesting him to delete the name of the applicant from the FIR and not to take

further action against applicant as he did not commit any fraud with him, which also shows that the applicant is also a victim and Anish Tekwani and

others committed fraud with the applicant, complainant Jagdish Kushwaha and other persons. Even otherwise in the FIR the only allegation against the

applicant is that he attested the sale deed executed by Sitaram in favour of Rohit Jain, and merely attestation would not attract the provisions of

Section 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the IPC, because applicant is only attestation witness of the said deed and he did not identify Sitaram. On the

aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that charge-sheet (arising out of Crime No.169/2017 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Satna) be

quashed. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shakil Khan vs State of MP, 2017 (III)

MPWN 13.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that in the FIR it is clearly mentioned that the applicant prepared forged documents

in connivance with other co-accused Ramnarayan and others and identified a wrong person as Sitaram, who executed the sale deed of Government

land in favour of Rohit Jain. In the statement of Rohit Jain recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during investigation it is clearly

mentioned that the applicant Dharmendra showed him the land bearing survey No.309/2 and told that Anish was the owner of the said land and the

price of land was Rs.35,00,000/-. On 28/07/2012 applicant took Rs.7,00,000/- from him as part of sale consideration and it was agreed that remaining

amount will be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed. On 11/12/2012 applicant called him at Collectorate, Satna to execute the

registered sale deed of the said land, where he met applicant Dharmendra, Neeraj Gupta, Laxmi Prasad, Rajneesh Sharma, Shiv Bhushan, Ramanand

Patwari and Sitaram (forged owner of said land). This Sitaram executed the sale deed of said land in his favour. He gave cheque of Rs.one crore to

Sitaram and Laxmi Prasad. Thus Applicant Dharmendra, Neeraj Gupta and Laxmi Prasad committed fraud with him by showing fake documents and

introducing an imposter as Sitaram, owner of said land who is not in existence. Applicant and Neeraj Gupta became the witness in the registry and

identified an imposter Seetaram as the owner of said land. However, no one named as Sitaram Karai resided in Hanuman Nagar New Township. So,

prima facie offence under Section 420, 467 of the IPC is clearly made out against the applicant. So, the FIR cannot be quashed against the applicant.

This Court has gone through the record and arguments putforth by the learned counsel of both the parties. It appears from the record that Police

has not filed charge-sheet against the applicant as yet and investigation is still going on. So no question of quashing of charge-sheet against the

applicant arises.

So far as FIR is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335

held that :-

“The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The court will not be

justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. The

following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under

Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,

though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to

give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised :

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report orthe complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety

do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and othermaterials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers under Sections 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section

155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR orcomplaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute acognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted

by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are soabsurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever

reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of theprovisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is

instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing

efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.â€​

Which shows that the FIR can only be quashed where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at

their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

While in the instant case in the FIR it is clearly mentioned that co-accused Lakshmi Prasad Tripathi also committed fraud with Rohit Jain in

connivance with the applicant and Neeraj. In the statement of Rohit Jain recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during investigation it is

clearly mentioned that applicant Dharmendra showed him the land bearing survey No.309/2 and asked that Anish was the owner of the said land and

the price of land was Rs.35,00,000/-. On 28/07/2012 applicant took Rs.7,00,000/- from him as part of sale consideration and it was agreed that

remaining amount will be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed. On 11/12/2012 applicant called him at Collectorate, Satna to execute

the registered sale deed of the said land, where he met applicant Dharmendra, Neeraj Gupta, Laxmi Prasad, Rajneesh Sharma, Shiv Bhushan,

Ramanand Patwari and Sitaram (forged owner of said land). This Sitaram executed the sale deed of said land in his favour. He gave cheque of

Rs.one crore to Sitaram and Laxmi Prasad. Thus, applicant Dharmendra, Neeraj Gupta and Laxmi Prasad committed fraud with him by showing fake

documents and introducing an imposter as Sitaram, owner of said land, who was not in existence. Applicant and Neeraj Gupta became the witness in

the registry and identified an imposter Seetaram as the owner of said land. However, no person named Sitaram Karai resides at Hanuman Nagar,

New Township. So prima facie offence under Section 420, 466 of IPC is clearly made out against the applicant, so the FIR cannot be quashed against

the applicant.

The facts of the case Shakil Khan (supra) relied by the learned senior counsel for the applicant do not match with the present case as in that case

there was no evidence on record to indicate that applicant identified Shakila Bi as Betul Bi, while in this case in the case diary statement of Rohit Jain

recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. it is mentioned that the applicant identified a wrong person as Sitaram in the sale deed. So

that judgment does not help the applicant much.

Only on the ground that earlier applicant had lodged the report alongwith Rohit Jain, Atul Shukla and Rajesh Kumar Haswani against Anis

Tekwani, Sitaram Vishwakarma, Mansingh Bisen and Raviraj Tiwari regarding fraud, it cannot be said at this stage that the applicant himself is a

victim. Although, a letter said to have been written by Jagdish Kushwaha is also filed by the applicant, but as discussed above it appears from the

charge-sheet filed by the Police against co-accused that the applicant committed fraud with Rohit Jain and there is no evidence on record that Rohit

Jain wrote any letter to the Police that the applicant had not committed any fraud with him. From perusal of the sale deed which was executed by

Sitaram in favour of Rohit Jain and FIR and the statement of Rohit Jain prima facie offence under Section 420, 467 of the IPC is made out against the

applicant, so the FIR also can not be quashed.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.