Sections When Put Into Chargesheet, Can’t Be Based On Bald Assertions of Connivance: SC Closes Cheating Case Against M.P. Housing Board Official

Impugned in the appeal, before the Apex Court, was the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a Criminal Case whereby a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the First Information Report registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B r/w 34, Indian Penal Code 1860 against an employee of the Housing Board, was dismissed.

The Division Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol asserted, “There is no inkling in the slightest, apart from alleging connivance to suggest that the appellant had played a role, in dereliction of his duty.

AOR Pramod Dayal represented the Appellant while AOR Sarad Kumar Singhania represented the Respondents.

The case revolved around a House in Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam, which was allotted on a hire purchase basis to one Gopaldas s/o Narayandas, vide agreement between him and the Madhya Pradesh State Housing Board in the year 1991. He sold the said property, and handed over possession thereof, to one Mangi Bai upon receipt of Rs.12,500 as consideration. Thereafter in 1994, Mangi Bai, subsequently for a consideration of Rs.19,000 sold the said property to respondent No.22 vide an agreement to sell.

The co-accused allegedly, in connivance with other persons and members of the Housing Board, forged the Power of Attorney of the original seller - Gopaldas in his favour and got the said property registered in his own name. It was alleged that the appellant, an official of the Housing Board, had aided and assisted the co-accuse. It was against this transfer of property that the subject FIR was lodged, and after investigation a chargesheet was filed.

The sole issue for consideration before the Bench was whether the appellant, an employee of the Housing Board, had prima facie involvement in the alleged forgery and cheating committed in connection with the property which was sought to be registered in the name of a particular person by way of a Power of Attorney.

Referring to the Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972, the Bench noticed that the power of the Housing Board to transfer the land to Gopaldas cannot be disputed. It had to be seen whether the ingredients of the Section under which the appellant stands charge-sheeted were prima facie attracted against him.

One of the contentions raised by the appellant was that his action was protected under Section 83 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. Clarifying that a provision similar to this one is section 197 of the CrPC, the Bench observed that the submission of the appellant had merit and, therefore, deserved to be accepted. The Bench held that the appellant’s official duty would be in furtherance of the act and, therefore, would be covered by wordings of Section 83 of the Adhiniyam,1972.

“There is no inkling in the slightest, apart from alleging connivance to suggest that the appellant had played a role, in dereliction of his duty. That apart, there are further reasons as to why the High Court appears to have erred in refusing to quash the subject criminal proceedings”, it said.

It was further noticed that no intent can be hinted to, where the appellant had willfully, with the intent to defraud, acted upon the allegedly forged Power of Attorney. Neither had anything been brought in the chargesheet upon completion of the investigation to show that the requirements of Section 120-B have been met. Nor the appellant had any information or knowledge about the subject Power of Attorney being forged.

The Bench clarified, “Sections when put into a chargesheet, cannot be based on bald assertions of connivance, there must be a substance which is entirely lacking in the present case. If the intent is on the face of it is absent qua one of the offences in the same transaction, it is absent in respect of the other offence as well, viz., Section 467, 468”

It was further noticed that no intention whatsoever could be attributed to the present appellant, and in the absence of any intention attributable to him, no criminal offence could be made out.

Thus, quashing the impugned judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Bench allowed the appeal and closed the proceedings arising from the subject FIR.

Cause Title: Dinesh Kumar Mathur v. State of M.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 16)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Pramod Dayal

Respondent: AOR Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advocate Rashmi Singhania

Click here to read/download Judgment