Brief facts 

In the matter at hand Shrichand Bhau v. State of M.P On July 7, 2021, an FIR was filed against the petitioners for an alleged violation of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, stating that the petitioners had falsified the sale documents for the properties since the respondent complainant’s father had never sold them. The accused parties filed the current petition according to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, requesting the cancellation of the contested FIR, charge sheet, and all related procedures.

Argument Advance 

The petitioners contend that in a civil lawsuit for a declaration of title based on a will for properties, the complainant and the current petitioners agreed to a solution. After the civil lawsuit was dismissed, the petitioners changed their names by applying to the Tahsildar for name mutation. The complaint was filed, and the inquiry has been ongoing for more than two years. The petitioners contend that by filing an FIR 34 years after the claimed cause of action, the complainant is trying to turn a civil issue into a criminal offence.

Observation from court 

A single bench composed of Justice Anand Pathak of the Madhya Pradesh High Court instructed the superintendent of police in each district to work with the district prosecution officers and conduct routine reviews of outstanding charge sheets, particularly in situations where civil disputes are being attempted to be turned into criminal prosecutions.

The Court discovered there was no challenge to the complainant’s signature on the sale documents. The complainant’s brother gave his consent for the father to sell the petitioners’ property. After 34 years, it is no longer possible to contest the validity of the sale deeds since the statute of limitations had run out. The court further stated that heirs have no claim to property while the owner is still alive, and that since the person never objected to the deed, their legal heir cannot object to it now that they have passed away. When the complainant sided with the petitioners and acknowledged carrying out the deeds, his allegation was refuted.

The Court decided that the petitioners’ lack of compliance or procedural errors do not constitute a crime in and of themselves. It emphasised that, even if accepted at face value, the claims do not, at first glance, amount to an offence or establish a case against the petitioners. The criminal process was criticised by the court as being ill-intentioned and intentionally started with an ulterior goal to exact revenge on the accused owing to personal and private grievances. The Court instructed Police Officers and District Prosecution Officers to comply with their assignments and to be cognizant of Chapter IX regulations, particularly Sections 166, 166-A, and 167 of the IPC. The plea was accepted by the court, and the FIR filed against the petitioners for an alleged violation of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC was dismissed.

CASE NAME – Shrichand Bhau v. State of M.P., Misc. Criminal Case No. 3315 of 2023