MCRC NO.

: /2024
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE (M.P.)

Applicant :- 1. Madhuri Singh W/o Chitrasen Singh

Age:- 59, Occupation:- Business,
Address:- 319 Mahnakal Vanijay Kendra
Nana, Dist. Ujjain (M.P.)
2. Chitrasen Singh S/o Shiv Singh
Age :- 60, Occupation:- Service,
319 Mahnakal Vanijay Kendra Nana, Dist.
Ujjain (M.P.)
V/s
NON- Applicant :- 1. State of Madhya Pradesh
Through P.S. Bhaurasa,
District – Dewas (M.P.)
2. Bharat S/o Asharam Prajapati
Age:- 40, Address :- Hanuman Marg
Tehsil Opposite Tappa Bhaurasa.
3. Kishore S/o Girdharilal Kumawat
Age:- 46, Address:- 9 Bhawarnath Marg
Bhaurasa, Dewas (M.P.)
4. Dharmenda S/o Dilip Yadav
Age:-34, Address:- 66 Sardar Patel Marg
Bhaurasa.
5. Vinod S/o Shivnarayan,
Age:- 34, Address:- 16 Sardar Patel Marg
Bhaurasa.

PETITION U/S 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,1973

FOR QUASHMENT OF F.I.R OF CRIME NO 196/2022,
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC REGISTERED AT
POLICE STATION- BHAURASA, DISTRICT DEWAS (M.P.)

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIP:-

A/ SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF

 Being aggrieved by F.I.R. registered at the police station Bhaurasa,
District- Dwas, vide crime no. 196/2022 for offence punishable U/s 420
of IPC. The petitioners named above beg to prefer this petitioner U/s 482
of Cr.P.C. for quashment of F.I.R. on the following facts and grounds:-

B/ BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

1. That, this is the first Petition U/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for

quashment the F.I.R. registered to vide crime no. 196/2022 for
offence punishable U/s 420 of IPC. No, any other petition, appeal,
or SLP is pending before or decided by the Hon’ble High Court or
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

2. That, in nutshell facts of the present matter are –

The complainants Kishore, Dharmendra, Vinod, and Bharat
submitted the written complaint before the Station Officer Police
Station Bhaurasa on 01/05/2022 stating that applicant no. 1 is the
proprietor of Mayank Marketing and Global Marketing. Although
the entire business is being looked after by the applicant's husband-
Chitrasen Singh applicant no. 2 who is a Seed Certification Officer
and used to his business in Bhorasa Mandi and only because of his
influence, the farmers agreed to give their food grains to credit to
applicant no. 1.
The applicant, No. 1, has purchased food grains from various
farmers amounting to Rs. 42,82,372/-, out of which she has already
paid a sum of Rs. 20,50,000/-. A remaining sum of approximately
Rs. 22,32,372/- is yet to be paid to the farmers for the food grains
purchased for trading purposes. She issued post-dated cheques to
the complainants against the remaining amount, specifically:
 Cheque No. 33089405 of Union Bank for the amount of Rs.
11,67,390/- to Bharat.
 Cheque No. 000734 of HDFC Bank for the amount of Rs.
5,27,161/- to Kishore.
 Cheque No. 000736 of HDFC Bank for the amount of Rs.
3,50,562/- to Vinod.
 Cheque No. 000742 of HDFC Bank for the amount of Rs.
5,00,500/- to Dharmendra.
 Total amount of all the cheque is rupees 25,45,613/-
The present complainants presented the cheques to the bank
however, due to insufficient funds, all the cheques were
dishonored.
After that, on 23/03/2022, the notarized mutual agreement
was executed by Madhuri Singh, Applicant No.01, in favor of the
sole respondent, Bharat Prajapati, Respondent No. 2. The content
of the said agreement states that the transaction for purchasing
gains occurred between applicant No 1 and the farmers in the year
2020, with Madhuri Singh, Applicant No. 1, purchasing the gains
from the farmers for the amount of 66,00,000/- Rupees. Applicant
No. 1 has already paid 45,00,00/- rupees in installments, and the
remaining amount of 21,00,000/- is to be paid in two installments.
The first installment of 10,00,000/- was paid on 30/04/2022, and
the second installment of 11,00,000/- was paid on 30/02/2022, with
an additional 8,00,000/- paid as interest.
That, in the said agreement the attested witnesses are the
present complainants namely Kishore and Vinod. They both are the
beneficiaries.
 That, during the course of the investigation on the written
complaint, respondent no. 1 registered a false FIR against the
present applicant u/s 420 of IPC. Thereafter police registered the
crime. Copy of the F.I.R. and chargesheet is herewith marked as
Annexure A/1.

3. The present petition on the following grounds inter-alia: -

4/ GROUNDS:-

4.1 That, there is no single evidence against the petitioners that

in any way they are connected with the alleged offence
Prima Facie no case is made out against the petitioners.

4.2 That, the applicants are citizen of India, who is innocent,

and filing the present application for the protection of his
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India
under article 21 of the Constitution of India. The applicants
are a reputed citizens of Ujjain and belong to a reputed
family.

4.3 That, the purchased food grains from various farmers

amounting to Rs. 42,82,372/-, out of which she has already
paid a sum of Rs. 20,50,000/-. A remaining sum of
approximately Rs. 22,32,372/- is yet to be paid to the
farmers for the food grains purchased for trading purposes.
She issued post-dated cheques to the complainants (farmers)
against the remaining amount.
4.4 That, the present complainants presented the said cheques
which were issued in favor of the said purchase of the grains
by the applicants to the bank however, due to insufficient
funds, all the cheques were dishonored. The complainant did
not file any case under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act against the said cheques that were
dishonored due to insufficient funds. The prescribed
limitation to file a 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
was lapse.

4.5 That, the cheques are dishonored and time bared to further
proceed or to take any legal action against the said cheques.

4.6 The complainants utilized there physical strength and

forcefully executed the agreement. The said agreement was
initiated and executed between the respondent No. 2, Bharat
Prajapati, and the applicants, Madhuri and Chitrasen Singh.
According to the agreement, Bharat was not a beneficiary.
Upon examining the agreement, it is evident that the role of
respondent No. 2 is merely that of a mediator.

4.7 According to the agreement dated 23/03/2022, the purchase

of grains amounted to Rs. 66,00,000/-. of this total, Rs.
45,00,000/- has already been paid to the farmers through
installments. However, as per the FIR, the applicant
purchased food grains from various farmers totaling Rs.
42,82,372/-. Out of this amount, she has already paid Rs.
20,50,000/-. A remaining sum of approximately Rs.
22,32,372/- is yet to be paid to the farmers for the food
grains purchased for trading purposes. There exists a
 significant discrepancy and omission between the details
outlined in the agreement and those presented in the FIR.

4.8 According to the FIR, only Rs. 22,32,372/- remains to be

paid. However, based on the agreement, the applicant has
already paid more than the purchase amount for the grains.
Specifically, the applicant has paid Rs. 45,00,000/- to the
farmers. No amount remains to be paid by the applicant to
the respondents. Consequently, all the documents produced
by the respondents, which are also part of the chargesheet,
are presented in that context.

4.9 That, According to the documents provided by the

complainants and all the material evidence on record, not a
single penny remains to be paid to the complainant, as all the
credit amounts have already been paid. The FIR was filed to
recover the more amounts with bad intentions.

4.10 That, The FIR was registered with a delay of more than 2
years, considering that the purchase of grains took place in
2020. The complainant has not provided any explanation for
this significant delay.

4.11 According to the FIR, the complaint solely pertains to the

recovery of money from the sale of grains. This action by the
complainant is of a civil nature but has been misrepresented
as a criminal offense. The complainants have the option to
file a B-part suit before the learned civil court to pursue the
recovery process.
4.12 That, as per the basic ingredients of section 420 of the IPC
are as following:-

“Section 420:- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery

of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces
the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or
to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security.

That as per the said section there is no single

essential ingredient of the said section highlighted in
the FIR to attract the said section on the present
applicant.
There is no breach of contract/agreement
because the present applicant has already paid the full
amount to the farmers for the purchase of grains from
them.
4.13 That, there can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is
not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil
liability of damages. However, as held by this court in
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
& Anr.26, the distinction between mere breach of contract
and cheating, which is a criminal offence, is a fine one.
While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal
prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is
the basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand, the
complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 to 5 does not
disclose the dishonest or fraudulent intention of the
applicants.
4.14 That, In the case of The Commissioner of Police (supra)
the Hon'ble Court has observed that the initiation of the criminal
proceedings by the complainant is nothing but abuse of
process of law to settle the civil dispute.

4.15 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others, 2013 Cr.L.R (SC) 67
has held as under:-

''7. 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 the facts alleged therein. Whether
essential ingredients of a 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 essential of a civil nature is
given a cloak of a 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.''
4.16 The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Mahammed
Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another, (2009) 3
SCC (Cr) 929 has held as under:-

''8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to

the growing tendency of complainants attempting to
give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which
are essentially 14 and purely civil in nature, obviously
either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of
enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused
to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that
proceedings before it is not used for settling scores or
to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the
same, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil
nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal
offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal
offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes.
[See: G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [2000 (2) SCC
636] and Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India
Ltd. [2006 (6) SCC 736]. Let us examine the matter
keeping the said principles in mind.''

4.17 That, the petitioners have relied upon the judgments passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar J.
Sha vs. State of Karnataka & Others, decided on 26th
October, 2021 in Criminal Appeal No.1285 of 2021. the
petitioners that the motive of respondent No.2 shows to
create pressure on the petitioners and to put him under
harassment. There is no inducement or fraudulent or
 dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner right from
the beginning of the contract/ agreement. Any civil liability
cannot be allowed to be executed through a criminal case by
exerting pressure. It is submitted that mere failure on the part
of the petitioners to keep his promise at a later stage would
not bring the case within the meaning of ''cheating''.
Respondent No.2 has tried to give the colour of a criminal
case which is not permissible. Unless and until, there is an
intention to cheat respondent No.2 on the day one, no
offence can be said to be made against petitioners.

4.18 Even in cases where allegations are made regarding the

petitioners' failure to fulfill their promise, if there was no
culpable intention at the time of making the promise, no
offense under Section 420 IPC can be said to have occurred.
There is no evidence to suggest that the appellants harbored
any malicious intent against the respondent.

4.19 Because, the allegations against the petitioners are baseless

and registration of F.I.R. arbitrary and illegal, hence liable to
be set aside.

4.20 That, the allegation so made, suffers from a lack of

necessary ingredients required in the law to establish and
constitute the said offence.

4.21 That, the allegation foisted against the petitioner also appear
to be concocted against him.

PRAYER
In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant therefore prays that:-

(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant interim protection for the
apprehension of their arrest.

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this application, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of stay the court
proceeding in RCT NO 617/2023 (P.S. Bhaurasa VS Madhuri
Singh and Another) that was initiated against the applicants.

(c) It is, therefore, prayed, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash the F.I.R. in the police station Bhaurasa, District-
Dewas, vide crime no. 196/2022 for offence punishable U/s 420 of
IPC. The petitioners named above beg to prefer this petitioner U/s
482 of Cr.P.C. vide Annexure A/1 in the interest of justice.

(d) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer.

(e) For any other orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case.

Place : Indore Submitted By:-

Date :- 21/02/2024
Council For applicant
(Prafull Sharma)
 MCRC NO. : /2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE (M.P.)

Applicant :- Madhuri Singh and Another

V/s
NON- Applicant :- State of Madhya Pradesh and others
INDEX
S.No. Description of Documents Annexure Page No.

1. Petition U/s 482 of CRPC

2. Affidavits
3. Copy Of FIR and Chargesheet Annexure A/1
4. Vakalatnama

Place : Indore Submitted By:-

Date :- 21/02/2024
Council For applicant
(Prafull Sharma)