Madhya Pradesh High Court
Zafar Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1107
1 MCRC-33983-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33983 of 2024
ZAFAR ALI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR dated 20.10.2022 vide Crime
No.1065/2022 registered at Police Station Nishatpura, District Bhopal for the
offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC as well as the entire criminal
proceedings in connection thereto.
2. The controversy revolves around a land situated at Khasra No.3
admeasuring area 3.47 acres at village Nishatpura, Ward No.69 Tehsil
Huzur, District Bhopal. As per appellant case, the said land was owned by
Mr. Sajjad Hussain and Mr. Sajjad Hussain executed a “Power of Attorney”
in favour of the present applicant in respect of a land admeasuring about
22,500 sq,ft, out of total area of 3.47 acres of Khasra No.3. The present
applicant was given the authority to execute the sale-deed in favour of the
purchaser of the said plot or the plots upon its sub-division. Accordingly, theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:11072 MCRC-33983-2024
present applicant had executed a sale-deed in favour of one Shafiqa Begum
in respect of plot No.116. However, respondent No.2, namely, Irfan Hussain
lodged a complaint on 24.08.2021 and in the said complaint it was alleged
that the aforesaid property was recorded in the name of his father, namely,
Sajjad Hussain who never executed any “Power of Attorney” in favour of
anyone. One Ajam Ali executed few sale-deeds in respect of some part of the
said property and the present applicant also executed the sale-deed of some
parts of the same Khasra number. On the basis of the complaint so lodged by
the respondent No.2, the First Information Report has been registered and the
present applicant is being prosecuted.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the entire
prosecution of the applicant is unsustainable inasmuch as a purely civildispute is being given a color of criminality which is impermissible. It is
contended by the counsel that the owner of the property is Mr. Sajjad
Hussain had executed a “Power of Attorney” dated 01.01.1995 (Annexure
A/2) in favour of the present applicant. The said “Power of Attorney” even
as on date has not been disputed by Mr. Sajjad Hussain who is the owner of
the property. The respondent No.2 who is son of Mr. Sajjad Hussain, has no
right as regards the said property and thus, no First Information Report at his
instance could have been lodged. It is further contended by the counsel that
as respondent No.2 was interfering with the disposal of the property by
present applicant therefore, a suit for permanent injunction was filed against
respondent No.2 and his father-Mr. Sajjad Hussain. Both of them, despite
receiving notice, did not appear before the trial Court and ultimatelySignature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1107
3 MCRC-33983-2024
proceeded ex-parte. The trial Court though vide judgment dated 07.03.2024
(Annexure A/4) dismissed the suit but concluded in paragraph 16 that Mr.
Sajjad Hussain had executed “Power of Attorney” in favour of the present
applicant. The trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground of
locus standi as the suit was filed on the strength of the “Power of Attorney”
but the fact remains that the Court concluded specifically in paragraph 16
that Mr. Sajjad Hussain who was defendant No.1 in the suit, had executed
a “Power of Attorney” in favour of the present applicant.
4. It is contended by the counsel that respondent No.2 was hand in
gloves with the official of the Police Station Nishatpura, therefore, a
complaint was made by the present applicant to the higher police official
which is contained in Annexure A/5. The respondent No.2, in the meantime,
had settled the matter amicably and had made an application dated
15.01.2022 before Police Station Nishatpura, Bhopal vide Annexure A/6 and
had made a specific prayer that he did not wish to pursue any action on his
complaint against the present applicant as there was an amicable settlement
between respondent No.2 and present applicant. The said communication
dated 15.01.2022 (Annexure A/6) has not been disputed by the respondent
No.2, thus, counsel contends that in such circumstances, as the Station House
Officer, Nishatpura, District Bhopal was hand-in-gloves with respondent
No.2 and was even flouting the directions of his superior which is evident
from page Nos.58, 59 and 60 of the petition, the First Information Report has
been lodged in order to humiliate and harass the present applicant in absence
of any illegality. The dispute is purely civil in nature. If the respondent No.2
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1107
4 MCRC-33983-2024
intends to dispute the “Power of Attorney” which was issued in favour of
the present applicant, it is for the respondent No.2 to approach a competent
Civil Court seeking declaration against the said “Power of Attorney” but the
First Information Report cannot be made a tool to unnecessarily humiliate
and harass the present applicant. In support of his contention, counsel has
placed reliance of the decisions of Apex Court in the cases of Paramjeet
Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673,
Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of
Home and Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706, State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others vs. Ravi Prakash Srivastava and Another reported in (2019) 20
SCC 744, Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2021
SCC OnLine SC 1007, Usha Chakraborty and Another vs. State of West
Bengal and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90 and Mahmood Ali
and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
9 5 0 submits that the impugned First Information Report and ensued
proceedings deserve to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as
respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer and submitted that the First
Information Report prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable
offence and interfering with such an FIR, is not permissible. It is contended
by the counsel for the respondent No.2 that Mr. Sajjad Hussain, who is his
father, had never executed any “Power of Attorney” in favour of the present
applicant. Statement of Mr. Sajjad Hussain was recorded under Section 161
of Cr.P.C. and in the said statement, he clearly stated that he had not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1107
5 MCRC-33983-2024
executed any “Power of Attorney” in favour of the present applicant,
therefore, in view of the said statement of Mr. Sajjad Hussain, the
prosecution of the present applicant is sustainable and does not require any
interference.
6. It is further contended by the counsel for the respondent No.2 that
the present applicant on the strength of a forged “Power of Attorney” has
alienated a part of the property and respondent No.2 who has to inherit the
property eventually, is the ultimate sufferer and his interests are being
jeopardized. Therefore, counsel submits that the present applicant is not
entitled for any relief as prayed and inherent powers under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. It is contended by the counsel that as per the
First Information Report, prima facie a case is made out against the present
applicant under the aforesaid section and, therefore, no interference is
warranted.
7. No other point is argued or pressed by both the parties.
8. Heard the rival submissions and perused the record.
9 . A perusal of record reflects that the First Information Report has
been lodged against the present applicant and one Ajam Ali on the allegation
that the applicant and co-accused had alienated the property in question
which was owned by the father of respondent No.2/complainant on the
strength of forged “Power of Attorney”. The said “Power of Attorney” is
dated 01.01.1995 and as per the contents of “Power of Attorney”, the same
was executed by Mr. Sajjad Hussain in favour of the present applicant in
respect of an area admeasuring 22,500 sq.fts. out of 3.50 acres of Khasra
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1107
6 MCRC-33983-2024
No.3 situated at village Nishatpura, District Bhopal.
10. The First Information Report reflects that the complaint was
lodged by respondent No.2 on 24.08.2021 and in the said complaint, it was
stated that the present applicant had executed a sale-deed of Plot No.116
which was a part of Khasra No.3 village Nishatpura, Bhopal on 24.03.2010
in favour of one Shafiqua Begum and Ms. Shafiqua Begum, in turn, alienated
the said property to third person and it was also alleged in the First
Information Report that there are other sale-deeds also which were executed
by the present applicant on the strength of forged “Power of Attorney”.
Along with the complaint, there is a sale-deed executed by the present
applicant in favour of Ms. Shfiqua Begum in respect of Plot No.116 and the
total area is mentioned as 600 sq.fts.
11. The prosecution apart from the First Information Report examined
the present applicant and present applicant in his statement stated that he was
authorized by Mr. Sajjad Hussain to execute sale-deed and as per the “Power
of Attorney”, he executed 25-26 sale-deeds and all the sale-deeds were duly
registered. As per the case diary, the statement of respondent No.2 under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 22.01.2022. Apart from the said
statement of respondent No.2, statement of Mr. Sajjad Hussain is also there
which contains his signature also. In the said statement, Mr. Sajjad Hussain
stated that he had not executed any “Power of Attorney” in favour of the
present applicant. The said statement of Mr. Sajjad Hussain which is
available in the case diary including his signature does not contain any date.
There are two other statements in the case diary of the respondent No.2 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1107
7 MCRC-33983-2024
Mr. Sajjad Hussain and the said statements according to prosecution, were
recorded on 17.11.2022, however, both these statements do not contain
signatures of respondent No.2 or Mr. Sajjad Hussain.
12. It is undisputed that the respondent No.2 is the son of the owner of
the property i.e. Mr. Sajjad Hussain. Respondent No.2 had lodged the
complaint on 24.08.2021, therefore, by 24.08.2021 it was well known to the
original owner i.e. Mr. Sajjad Hussain that there was alienation of property
in question by the present applicant. Mr. Sajjad Hussain has not lodged any
report against the present applicant and there is no complaint on record by
Mr. Sajjad Hussain who is the original owner of the said property against the
present applicant.
13. Respondent No.2 while claiming himself to be the power of
attorney holder of the property, lodged the complaint and a stand has been
taken that the respondent No.2 being son of original owner i.e. Mr. Sajjad
Hussain, has right to inherit the property. If the respondent No.2 lodged the
complaint against the present applicant and stand of respondent No.2 was
that his father had never executed any “Power of Attorney” in favour of the
present applicant, then respondent No.2 himself could have amicably settled
the dispute or not, is questionable aspect. The respondent No.2 in his reply to
this application has not disputed his communication dated 15.01.2022
(Annexure A/6), by which, he expressed his intention to not press the said
complaint against the present applicant. The said communication dated
15.01.2022 was also produced in the civil suit by the present applicant as
Exhibit P/4.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1107
8 MCRC-33983-2024
14. It is evident from perusal of paragraph 3 of judgement and decree
dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure A/4) that the notice of the suit was served upon
the respondent No.2 as well as Mr. Sajjad Hussain and yet, they did not
appear before the trial Court and eventually proceeded ex-parte vide order
dated 14.12.2021. Despite the said civil suit also, in which it was specifically
claimed by the present applicant that he had right as regards the property in
question on the strength of “Power of Attorney” dated 01.01.1995, no efforts
were ever made by the original owner Mr. Sajjad Hussain or even by
respondent No.2 to rebut the said assertion.
15. It is further evident from perusal of paragraph 16 of judgment of
trial Court dated 07.03.2024 that the trial Court had concluded that defendant
No.1 i.e. Mr. Sajjad Hussain had executed a “Power of Attorney” in favour
of present applicant (who was plaintiff in the suit). Therefore, it is apparent
that the dispute pertains to a property and according to applicant, he is holder
of a “Power of Attorney” executed by the original owner i.e. Mr. Sajjad
Hussain and according to respondent No.2, the said “Power of Attorney” is
forged and was not executed by Mr. Sajjad Hussain.
16. It is also undisputed that the original owner Mr. Sajjad Hussain has
not filed any complaint against the present applicant nor has filed any suit
despite coming to know about the alienation of the property by the present
applicant to third person on the strength of “Power of Attorney” dated
01.01.1995. Therefore, apparently, the dispute pertains to the validity
of “Power of Attorney” and the same can only be gone into by the civil Court
and it is undisputed that the applicant himself on the strength of the “Power
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1107
9 MCRC-33983-2024
of Attorney” had approached the civil Court, therefore, the respondent No.2
and Mr. Sajjad Hussain had all opportunity to dispute the said “Power of
Attorney”.
17. The respondent No.2 has not disputed the fact that the judgment
and decree of the civil Court dated 07.03.2024 including the findings
contained in paragraph 16, have not been assailed by respondent No.2 or Mr.
Sajjad Hussain by filing any First Appeal. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it
is a case where a civil dispute is being sought to be converted into an alleged
act of criminality in order to settle the personal score. It is also not disputed
that the respondent No.2 himself had moved an application to not to press his
complaint against the present applicant in view of amicable settlement
between them. The said application (Annexure A/6) has not been
controverted by the respondent No.2 though a reply to this petition has been
filed by him way back on 23.12.2024.
18. In the entire reply so produced by the respondent No.2, there is no
dispute as regards the communication dated 15.01.2022 contained in
Annexure A/6. Thus, the contents of First Information Report and the
documents which are part of the case diary reflect that dispute is purely civil
in nature.
19. The Apex Court in the case of Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P.
reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626 held in paragraph 33 as under:-
“33. In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are being
taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser.
It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does not
disclose any offence so far as the appellant is concerned. There isSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:110710 MCRC-33983-2024
no whisper of how and in what manner, this appellant is involved
in any criminal offence and the charge-sheet, the relevant part
whereof has been extracted above, is absolutely vague. There can
be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC should be
used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a
complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature
of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a
criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High
Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil
transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has,
however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been
given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High
Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held
by this Court in Paramjeet Batra [Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 76]
extracted above.”
20. The Apex Court in the case of Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West
Bengal reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 90 held in paragraph 17 as
under:-
“17. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in
respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the
respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by
instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with
respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is
to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against
the appellants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed
the pending title suit in the year 2015, he got no case that he
obtained an interim relief against his removal from the office of
Secretary of the School Managing Committee as also the
trusteeship, that he filed the stated application for an order for
investigation only in April, 2017 together with absence of a case
that despite such removal he got a right to get informed of the
affairs of the school and also the trust, would only support the said
conclusion. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view
that this case invites invocation of the power under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the
Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all furtherSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:110711 MCRC-33983-2024
proceeding in pursuance thereof. Also, we have no hesitation to
hold that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings
against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result
in abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage of
justice.”
21. The Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of
Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 held in paragraph 12 as under:-
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used
sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends
upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential
ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged
by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may
also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether
a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available
and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High
Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of court.”
22. The Apex Court in the case of Mahmood Ali (supra) held in
paragraph 13 as under:-
“13. At this stage, we would like to observe something important.
Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the
court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to
proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance etc. then he would ensure that theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:110712 MCRC-33983-2024
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made
in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not
be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in
the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are
disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to
read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the
Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but
is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for
instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over
a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged.”
23. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court it is evident
that the Court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can
read between the line and also take into consideration the other materials
apart from the First Information Report, if the same clearly go to show that
the First Information Report is merely a device to abuse the process of law.
24. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal,
AIR 1992 SC 604 has also laid down the following parameters for quashing
the FIR:-
“(1) 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1107
13 MCRC-33983-2024
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 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 or
complaint 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 a
cognizable 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 so
absurd 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 the
provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide 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.”
25. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution
launched against the applicant is ill-founded as the same is a purely civil in
nature. Therefore, the First Information Report and also ensued proceedings
so far as they relate to present applicant deserves to be quashed.
26. Resultantly, this petition stands allowed. First Information Report
bearing Crime No.1065/2022 dated 20.10.2022 registered at Police Station
Nishatpura, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC and all further proceedings in connection thereto so far as they relate to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1107
14 MCRC-33983-2024
applicant stand quashed. The present applicant is discharged of the charge
framed against him.
27. Bail bond if executed by the applicant also stand discharged.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 16-01-2025
14:43:41
[ad_1]
Source link