Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amardeep vs Smt.Ayushi on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17250
1 CRR-2825-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 8th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2825 of 2017
AMARDEEP
Versus
SMT.ANJU
Appearance:
Shri Paras Mal Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.K Jain -Senior Counsel with Shri Vaibhav Jain for the
respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2827 of 2017
AMARDEEP
Versus
SMT.AYUSHI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Paras Mal Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.K Jain -Senior Counsel with Shri Vaibhav Jain for
the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 09-07-2025
15:25:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17250
2 CRR-2825-2017
Reserved on 02.07.2025.
Pronounced on 08.07.2025.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
These criminal revisions under section 397 of the Cr.P.C, 1973
are preferred challenging the legality of the order dated 10.08.2017
in revision no.35/15 and revision no.40/15 by Ist A.S.J, Dhar arising
out of order dated 07.01.2015 in criminal case no.30/2015 by JMFC,
Dhar.
2. Facts in brief are that revision petitioners of both the
revision petitions filed a complaint on 08.05.2014 before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dhar for taking cognizance of offence under
sections 420, 190, 193, 196, 403, 406, 423, 468, 120-B, 34 of the
IPC and section 28(1) of the M.P. Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964 and section 32(b) of
the M.P Vinirdisht Bhrashtachar Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 against
nine persons including the respondents of both the revision petitions.
3. The Court of Magistrate examined the revision petitioners
under section 200 of the Cr.P.C and also recorded the statement
under section 202 of the Cr.P.C and took cognizance under section
406 of the IPC and ordered to register the case as criminal case
No.30/15 and issued bailable warrant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 09-07-2025
15:25:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17250
3 CRR-2825-2017
4. Challenging the order of cognizance, a revision petition
no.39/15 was preferred by the revision petitioner for taking
cognizance under other sections mentioned in the complaint whereas
revision petition no.40/2015 was preferred by Ayushi Jain and
Sudhir Kumar Jain and revision petition no.35/2015 was preferred
by Smt.Anju Jain for setting aside the order of cognizance under the
offence of section 406 of the IPC.
5. All the revision petitions were heard analogously and vide
order dated 10.08.2017 the revision petition filed by the present
revision petitioner was dismissed and revision petition no.35/2015
and revision petition no.40/2015 were allowed and order dated
07.01.2015 in criminal case no.30/2015 of JMFC, Dhar was set
aside. Challenging the order in criminal revision no.35/2015, the
criminal revision no.2825/2017 and challenging the order in criminal
revision no.40/2015, the criminal revisional no.2827/2015 have been
preferred before this court.
6. Both the criminal revisions have been preferred on the
common grounds that the land of government allotted on lease is
being used in violation of the conditions of lease and for the purpose
other than the purpose of lease. The conditions for obtaining
permission has been violated and revisional court ignored the fact
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 09-07-2025
15:25:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17250
4 CRR-2825-2017
that land belonged to the government and private persons cannot
misappropriate the property or commit the breach of trust. If there
was lack of evidence then Sessions Court may order to the
Magistrate court for further enquiry but could not set aside the
cognizance. The standard of taking cognizance is only to see that
the grounds of proceedings are available and for this purpose the
sufficient material was available.
7. Heard.
8. Counsel for the respondents in both the revision petitions
have opposed the prayer submitting that if there is any violation of
the conditions of lease that may give rise to occasion to proceed
either for cancellation of lease or otherwise available remedies as per
civil law but no action can be taken through the recourse of criminal
law. There is no “entrustment.” In the absence of entrustment no
case under section 406 of the IPC is made out. The complainant is
nowhere in the picture. He does not have any say in the disputed
property. He has not entrusted property or dominion over the
property.
9. Perused the record as well as the contents of the complaint
filed on 08.05.2014.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 09-07-2025
15:25:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17250
5 CRR-2825-2017
10. The revision petitioner has disclosed that during the
course of collecting the information regarding Fort of Dhar Madhya
Pradesh, he came to know that in a circumference of 300 meters of
Fort there is a construction in violation of the M.P. Ancient
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964 and
also came to know further that on the government land of survey
no.749, the Syndicate bank and Canara bank ATMs are situated and
some construction is being done by one Sudhir Jain and he further
came to know that a construction permission has been granted on
09.09.2004 to Nawab Sheikh and others and the same permission
has been transferred to Prakashchand Nagrani and Subhashchandra.
There were further alienation. He came to know that Anju Jain and
Ayushi Jain had leased out the premises to the Syndicate Bank and
Canara Bank and are receiving monthly rent to the tune of
Rs.28,300/- per month. The factum of cheating by forged document
was found.
11. In Prof. R.K Vijayasarathy vs Sudha Seetharam -(2019)
16 SCC 739, the apex Court identified the ingredients required for a
charge under section 406 to be justified in para-13 as under:
13.1 A person should have been entrusted with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 09-07-2025
15:25:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:172506 CRR-2825-2017
property or entrusted with dominion over property;
13.2 That person should dishonestly
misappropriate or convert to their own use that property or
dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully
suffer any other person to do so; and13.3 That such misappropriation, conversion, use
or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged or of any legal contract which the person has
made touching the discharge of such trust.
12. On testing the case on the above principles, it is found
that there is no entrustment of the property mentioned in the
complaint on behalf of the petitioner or otherwise. In absence of
entrustment, no proceedings under section 406 of the IPC can be
proceeded, hence the revisional court committed no illegality in
allowing the revision petitions and setting aside the order of the trial
court, hence both the criminal revisions being devoid of merit arehereby dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 09-07-2025
15:25:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17250
7 CRR-2825-2017
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 09-07-2025
15:25:14
[ad_1]
Source link