Manorma Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 02-04-2026

<div> NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 1 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 IN THE E HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR E BEFOR HON 'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH CRIM MINAL REVISION No. 3252 of 2025 MANORMA AGRAWAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOT THER -------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- Appearance: Shri Sanjay Gupta – Ad dvocate for applicant. Shri Atul Kumar Sharm ma – Public Prosecutor for respondent No o.1/State. Shri Vibhor Kumar Sah hu – Advocate for respondent No.2. ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------ Reserved on : 24.03.2026 Delivered on : 02.04.2026 ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ORDER 1. With the consent t of the parties, the matter is finally heard d. 2. The instant crim minal revision filed under Section 397 read d with Section 401 of the Code of C Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as “ Cr.P.C. ”] takes exce eption to the order dated 04.06.2025 p passed by the Second Additional Jud dge to the Court of the First Additional S essions Judge, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 2 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 Ashoknagar,in Session n Case No.02/2025, whereby charges hav ve been framed against the applicant f for commission of offences under Secti ions 420, 467, 468 r/w 120-B of the e Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”]. 3. The brief facts le eading to the filing of the present revision n are as under: 3.1. A complaint was s made by the respondent No.2, who hap ppens to be the son of the applicant, to o the police authorities stating that the ap pplicant herein, by creating a forged p power of attorney dated 30.11.2017, said d to have been executed in her favour by the applicant and his brothers, Amit A Agarwal, Anuj Agarwal and sister Mi ithul Agarwal, with the aid of co-accuse ed Smt. Deepa Shrivastav, i.e, the Not tary, had tried to misappropriate various p properties said to be jointly owned by the complainant and his brothers/sister. 3.2. On the said co omplaint, an F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 110/2021 was registered at Police St tation Kotwali, Ashoknagar, against the applicant and Notary Smt. Deepa Sh hrivastav for commission of offences u under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120 -B IPC. On completing the investigation , a final report under Section 193 of B Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 23 [hereinafter referred to as “ BNSS ” ”] came to be filed by the respondent N No.1 before the learned trial Court on n 20.10.2024 against the applicant as w well as the co- accused Smt. Deepa Sh hrivastav for offences under Sections 420 0, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC. 3.3. On the basis of f the material placed on record alongw ith the charge sheet, the learned trial l Court, vide order dated 04.06.2025, fr ramed charges against the applicant f for the offences as stated hereinabove. I It is this order which is under challeng ge in the present criminal revision. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 3 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 4. Learned counsel l appearing for the applicant submits th hat the charge sheet filed by the pros secution does not contain any material to o indicate that the power of attorney dated 30.11.2017, of which the applican nt is alleged to be the beneficiary, ha as ever been used by the applicant at a any place. He further submits that t the entire investigation conducted by t the authorities nowhere conclusively e establishes that the power of attorney in question bears any signature made by y the applicant. He further submits that t the aforesaid power of attorney has s not been recovered from the applicant t but has been produced by the resp pondent No.2. In view whereof, the ch harges on the strength of the afores said power of attorney could not have e been framed against the present app plicant. By referring to the statements o of complainant Aman Agarwal and t the opinion given by the Examiner o of Questioned Documents dated 21.1 12.2022, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that neither the e signature of the applicant on the questio oned power of attorney has been foun nd to be proved by the State Examiner of Questioned Documents nor, the sta atement of complainant Aman Agarwal constitute any evidence of offences ag gainst the present applicant. The aforesai d aspects have been overlooked by the e learned trial Court while framing charg ges against the applicant and, therefor re, the applicant deserves to be discharge ed by quashing the order impugned. To o buttress these submissions, learned coun nsel appearing for the applicant places s reliance on Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of f Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 and Devend dra v. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 495. 5. On the other han nd, learned counsel appearing for the res spondent No.1 /State as well as the co ounsel appearing for the respondent No.2, , by taking this Court to the statemen nts of complainant Aman Agarwal, his brother Anuj Agarwal, and sister M Mitul Agarwal, submits that in all the stat tements, it has come on record that th he persons who are said to have executed d the power of attorney in question w were not in the country on the relevant date, yet their Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 4 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 signatures are fraudule ently endorsed on the power of attorney in n question. By further referring to the e statements of Shivkumar Verma and Sh hriram Kurmi, i.e, witnesses to the e questioned power of attorney reco orded by the prosecution, learned c counsel appearing for the respondents su ubmits that in their statements, they have specifically stated that at the in nstance of the present applicant, they y have signed as witnesses on the questio oned power of attorney. 6. Learned counsel l appearing for the respondents further d draws attention of this Court to the sup pplementary opinion of State Examiner of Questioned Documents dated 20.0 8.2024 to contend that as per the said op pinion, the seal of the Notary endorsed d on the questioned power of attorney has been found to be that of the co-accuse ed, i.e., Smt. Deepa Shrivastav. Smt. Dee epa Shrivastav, in her statement, has a also stated that at the instance of the pre sent applicant, she had notarized the questioned power of attorney. Accord dingly, learned counsel appearing for r the respondents submit that there ex xists sufficient material on record to p prima facie indicate the involvement of th he applicant in the offence in questio on, and therefore, the framing of charg ges cannot be questioned in view of f the limited scope of revisional jurisd diction of this Court, as has been re eiterated by the Apex Court in the cas se of State of Rajasthan vs. Fatehk karan Mehdu , Criminal Appeal No.2 217 of 2017, decided on 03.02.2017 7. Learned counsel appearing for the res spondent No.2 further places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in th he case of Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal l vs. Balwant Singh Khera and Oth ers , Criminal Appeal No.1116 of 20 023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7872 of 2021) , to o contend that even if, the questione ed document is not used, then also, f for the act of preparing the forged do ocuments the charges can very well be fra amed. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 5 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 7. In rejoinder arg guments, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that even the statements of witnesses to the power of attorney in question indicate that the aforesaid witnesses, in their stateme ents before the police authorities, have e expressed their ignorance as regards the e document on which, they had put the eir signatures as witnesses. 8. No other point h has been raised by the leaned counsel app pearing for the parties. 9. Heard the learne ed counsel appearing for the parties an nd perused the record. 10. The scope of in nterference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been n time and again explained by the Apex C Court. Further, the scope of interferen nce under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage e, when charge had been framed, is als so well settled. At the stage of framing o f a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation. Rather, it has to focus on the material and for rm an opinion whether there is strong sus picion that the accused has committed d an offence, which if put to trial, could p prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test o of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold t that at the stage of framing the charge, th he court should form an opinion that th he accused is certainly guilty of committi ing an offence, is to hold something w which is neither permissible nor is in con nsonance with scheme of Code of Crim minal Procedure. 11. Now, reverting t to the limit of the scope of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr. P.C., which ve sts the court with the power to call for an nd examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying it tself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a ca ase. The object Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 6 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 of this provision is to s set right a patent defect or an error of juris sdiction or law or the perversity which h has crept in the proceeding. 12. It is useful to ref fer to judgment of the Apex Court in Am mit Kapoor and Ramesh Chander and d Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , where sco ope of Section 397 Cr. P.C. have been n succinctly considered and explained. P Para 12 and 13 of Amit Kapoor (supra a) are as follows: "12 . Section to call for an the purposes regularity of object of this error of juris error and i scrutinize the of careful co with law. If Court, it em invoked whe erroneous, th law, the find evidence is arbitrarily o but are mer determined o 397 of the Code vests the court with the nd examine the records of an inferior co e power ourt for s of satisfying itself as to the legali f any proceedings or order made in a cas ity and se. The ct or an s provision is to set right a patent defec sdiction or law. There has to be a well-fo it may not be appropriate for the co founded ourt to e orders, which upon the face of it bears a a token ordance onsideration and appear to be in acco f one looks into the various judgments merges that the revisional jurisdiction of this can be grossly ions of material ere the decisions under challenge are g there is no compliance with the provis ding recorded is based on no evidence, m ignored or judicial discretion is ex r perversely. These are not exhaustive c rely indicative. Each case would have on its own merits.” ercised classes, e to be 13. Another jurisdiction o cannot be ex restrictions i interlocutory exercise of r injustice ex question as t and in acco r well-accepted norm is that the rev visional of the higher court is a very limited o xercised in a routine manner. One of the ne and inbuilt erim or is that it should not be against an inte y order. The Court has to keep in mind t that the revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to with the facie. Where the Court is dealing w to whether the charge has been framed pr ordance with law in a given case, it m roperly may be Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 7 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 reluctant to i unless the c aforestated. stage in the p interfere in exercise of its revisional juris case substantially falls within the cate sdiction egories dvanced Even framing of charge is a much ad proceedings under the CrPC.” 13. The Apex Court t in para 27 has recorded its conclusion and laid down principles to be consi idered for exercise of jurisdiction unde er Section 397 particularly in context of quashing of charge framed under Sec ction 228 Cr.P. C. Para 27, 27 (1), (2), (3), (9), (13) are extracted as follows: "27. Having two provisio Code and th will be app reference to jurisdiction. inherently im At best and u this Court, w be consider particularly, exercise of ju the Code or t g discussed the scope of jurisdiction unde er these ons, i.e., Section 397 and Section 482 he fine line of jurisdictional distinction, of the now it es with e such ropriate for us to enlist the principle o which the courts should exercise However, it is not only difficult mpossible to state with precision such prin but is nciples. ments of upon objective analysis of various judgm we are able to cull out some of the princi iples to diction, ither in red for proper exercise of jurisd with regard to quashing of charge ei urisdiction under Section 397 or Section together, as the case may be: 482 of 27.1. Though under Sectio more due ca these powers particularly, the Code sh circumspecti h there are no limits of the powers of the e Court wer, the n 482 of the Code but the more the pow are and caution is to be exercised in in nvoking eedings, s. The power of quashing criminal proce the charge framed in terms of Section hould be exercised very sparingly an ion and that too in the rarest of rare cases 228 of nd with s. 27.2. The C uncontrovert case and th establish the patently absu Court should apply the test as to wheth her the d of the ted allegations as made from the record e documents submitted therewith prima e offence or not. If the allegations urd and inherently improbable that no p a facie are so prudent Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 8 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 person can basic ingredi the Court ma ever reach such a conclusion and whe ients of a criminal offence are not satisfie ay interfere. ere the ed then 27.3. The H meticulous e considering w at the stage o High Court should not unduly interfe ere. No ded for examination of the evidence is need whether the case would end in conviction of framing of charge or quashing of charg n or not ge. 27.9. Anothe to observe is materials on material on conviction; allegations ta offence and, leading to inj er very significant caution that the cour ts have nce and ufficient nd in a s that it cannot examine the facts, eviden record to determine whether there is suf the basis of which the case would en the Court is concerned primarily wi aken as a whole whether they will consti ith the itute an if so, is it an abuse of the process of justice. f court 27.13. Quash continuous p satisfied, the continuation initial stage records with the documen facie.” hing of a charge is an exception to the prosecution. Where the offence is even b rule of broadly e Court should be more inclined to permit at that hal the bility of d prima of prosecution rather than its quashing . The Court is not expected to marsh a view to decide admissibility and reliab nts or records but is an opinion formed 14. When the facts s of the case are examined in light o of the settled principles of law as stated hereinabove, the charge sheet filed by the respondent No.1 again nst the applicant/accused contains the sta atement of the complainant/responden nt No.2, which, in no unambiguous term ms, states that the applicant herein had prepared a forged power of a attorney dated 30.11.2017 in respect o of the properties jointly owned by the app plicant and his brothers, namely Anuj j Agarwal, and sister Mithul Agarwal, who were not present at Ashoknagar on the said date and the complainant an nd his brothers i f t t f I I di h i t Mith l A l idi t Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 9 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 Indore. The statemen nt of the brother of the complainant, namely Anuj Agarwal, also specific cally states that on 30.11.2017, neithe er he nor the complainant nor sister r were at Ashoknagar, on 30.11.2017, i. e., the date of execution of the power r of attorney in question, and the said pow wer of attorney does not contain their signatures. The statement of Mithul Aga arwal, i.e., the sister of the complaina ant and daughter of the applicant, is also o on the same lines. The witnesses to o the power of attorney, namely Shrira am Kurmi and Shivkumar Sharma, h ave also stated that on the date of exe ecution of the power of attorney, Am man Agarwal, Anuj Agarwal, Amit Agarw wal, and Mithul Agarwal were not at A Ashoknagar and at the instance of the a applicant, they have signed as witne esses to the power of attorney. The s supplementary opinion given rendere ed by the State Examiner of Questione ed Documents, Government of M.P., d dated 20.05.2024, states that the seal imp pression of co- accused Notary Deepa Shrivastav on the questioned power of a attorney tallies with the seal recovered d from her. 15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appe earing for the applicant that the sign natures of the applicant on the questio oned power of attorney are not prove ed from the material collected during the course of arguments and therefor re, the charges could not have been fram med are, in the considered opinion of this Court, fallacious at this stage. This aspect is to be considered at the stag e of trial and not at the stage of framin ng of charges. Though it has been vehemently argued by the learned co ounsel for the applicant that since th here is no evidence collected by the p prosecution to indicate that the quest tioned document has been used by the applicant, the charges could not have e been framed. Therefore, so far as the of ffence relating to forgery is concer rned, the material collected during th the course of investigation, as discus ssed hereinabove, prima facie indicates t that the power of attorney dated 30. 11.2017 is alleged to have been prepa ared when the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 10 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 purported executants w were not present at the place of its execu ution and their signatures are stated to o have been affixed thereupon. The stat tements of the attesting witnesses furt ther indicate that they had signed the do ocument at the instance of the appli icant, and the supplementary opinion of the State Examiner of Question ned Documents lends support to the pro osecution case insofar as the involvem ment of the co-accused Deepa Shrivastav v is concerned. At this stage, this Cou urt is only required to see whether a pri ima facie case exists and not to exam mine the probative value of the materia l on record in detail. In view where of, this Court finds that sufficient grou unds exist for framing of charges aga ainst the applicant for offences under Sec ctions 467 and 468 read with Section 120-B of IPC. 16. However, as reg gards the offence under Section 420 of IP PC, this Court finds that even if the e entire material placed on record by the prosecution is accepted on its face value, there is no material to indi icate that the complainant was dece eived and, as a consequence thereof, w as dishonestly induced to deliver any property or to consent to the retention o of any property so as to result in w wrongful loss to the complainant and corresponding wrongful gain to the ap pplicant. The prosecution case, as it stand ds, only alleges preparation of a forge ed power of attorney, but does not dis sclose any act whereby the said docu ument was acted upon so as to bring abo out delivery of property or alteration o of any valuable security. 17. In A.M. Mohan v. State, (2024) 12 SCC 181 , the Hon’b ble Apex Court has held that unless the e ingredients of Section 415 are first disc closed, Section 420 cannot be pressed d into service. The relevant paras of A. .M. Mohan v. State (supra) are repro duced herein: “20. This Co [R.K. Vijaya 739] has cul ourt in R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha See asarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 1 tharam 6 SCC offence lled out the ingredients to constitute the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 11 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 under Sectio 46, paras 15- ons 415 and 420IPC, as under: (SCC pp p. 745- -20) “15. Secti ‘415. Che fraudulent deceived consent th intentiona to do anyt not so dec likely to c mind, repu 16. The in are as foll 16.1. Th induceme 16.1.1. Th induced t consent th 16.1.2. Th induced to not do or 16.2. In omission cause dam mind, repu 17. A frau ingredient induces an for the offe 18. Sectio ‘420. Che property.— induces th ion 415 of the Penal Code reads thus : eating.—Whoever, by deceiving any p tly or dishonestly induces the pers person, son so to deliver any property to any person, hat any person shall retain any prope ally induces the person so deceived to do o , or to erty, or or omit he were thing which he would not do or omit if h ceived, and which act or omission cause cause damage or harm to that person in es or is n body, utation or property, is said to “cheat”.’ ngredients to constitute an offence of ch heating lows : here should be fraudulent or dis ent of a person by deceiving him : shonest he person so induced should be intent to deliver any property to any person hat any person shall retain any property; tionally n or to ; or he person so induced should be intent tionally e would o do or to omit to do anything which he omit if he were not so deceived ; and cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or kely to n body, should be one which caused or is lik mage or harm to the person induced in utation or property . udulent or dishonest inducement is an es ssential honestly t of the offence. A person who dish nother person to deliver any property is fence of cheating. s liable on 420 of the Penal Code reads thus : eating and dishonestly inducing deliv —Whoever cheats and thereby dish very of honestly he person deceived to deliver any prop perty to k l d h h l Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 12 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 part of a or sealed, valuable s either des years, and 19. The Section 42 19.1. A p under Sec 19.2. The (a) deliver valuable security, or anything which is signed d into a and which is capable of being converted security, shall be punished with imprisonm scription for a term which may extend to d shall also be liable to fine.’ ment of o seven ingredients to constitute an offence 20 are as follows : under person must commit the offence of ch ction 415 ; and heating person cheated must be dishonestly indu uced to r property to any person ; or (b) make, signed or valuable s 20. Cheat constitute alter or destroy valuable security or an r sealed and capable of being converte nything ed into security . ting is an essential ingredient for an e an offence under Section 420 .” act to xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx 22. It could t Section 420I ingredients person chea deliver the p destroy valua capable of b words, for a must be show (i) the decept (ii) fraudule deliver any p (iii) dishones the induceme thus be seen that for attracting the provi ision of hat the IPC, the FIR/complaint must show th of Section 415IPC are made out an ated must have been dishonestly indu nd the uced to alter or property to any person; or to make, a able security or anything signed or seal being converted into valuable security . In led and In other 0IPC, it attracting the provisions of Section 420 wn that the FIR/complaint discloses: tion of any person; ently or dishonestly inducing that per property to any person; and rson to st intention of the accused at the time of m ent.” making [Emphasis Su upplied] Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 13 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 18. When tested on the anvil of law laid down hereinabove e, in the given facts and circumstanc ces, even if the material placed on r record by the prosecution is taken on n its face value, the ingredients of Sectio on 415 of IPC are prima facie not me et out. Rather, the case of the complaina ant is that their signatures were “forge ed” on the document, as they had neve er executed or signed the same. Such an allegation, even if taken at its face v value, does not fulfil the essential ing gredients of “cheating” as defined unde er Section 415 IPC. 19. Moreover, the S Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. St tate of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 ha as held that in order to constitute a an offence of cheatingthere must b be deception coupled with fraudulent or dishonest inducement leading t o delivery of property or alteration o of a valuable security. The Apex Co ourt has further held that where the alleg gations do not disclose that the com mplainant was induced to part with any y property on account of such decep ption, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC wou ld not be satisfied. The relevant paras of the Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) are re produced herein as follows: “18. Let us offence of ch of the offenc now examine whether the ingredients heating are made out. The essential ingr s of an redients ce of “cheating” are as follows : tion of a person either by making a fa (i) decept misleading or by any (ii) fraudu to either retention induce th anything so deceive (iii) such damage reputation false or ealment g representation or by dishonest conce other act or omission ; ulent or dishonest inducement of that p person deliver any property or to consent thereof by any person or to intent hat person so deceived to do or omit to the tionally t to do which he would not do or omit if he we ed ; and ere not act or omission causing or is likely to or harm to that person in body, n or property . o cause mind, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 14 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 19. To cons should not o cheating, the person decei stitute an offence under Section 420, only be cheating, but as a consequence o , there of such e accused should have dishonestly induc ived ced the (i) to deliv (ii) to mak security ( capable of ver any property to any person, or ke, alter or destroy wholly or in part a va (or anything signed or sealed and wh aluable hich is ty) . f being converted into a valuable securit 21. It is not accused tried misleading omission, no fraudulent o or to consen intentionally which he wo Nor did the pretended to deeds . Theref the act of e accused or purchaser, o of being the the sale deed t the case of the complainant that any of the false or d to deceive him either by making a fa representation or by any other acti or is it his case that they offered hi or dishonest inducement to deliver any pr ion or im any roperty n or to nything eceived. ppellant nt to the retention thereof by any person y induce him to do or omit to do an ould not do or omit if he were not so de e complainant allege that the first app o be the complainant while executing th efore, it cannot be said that the first accu he sale used by executing sale deeds in favour of the second ing the the second accused by reason of bei or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason gard to ner. witness, scribe and stamp vendor in reg ds, deceived the complainant in any mann 22. As the in are not foun punishable Code .” ngredients of cheating as stated in Secti nd, it cannot be said that there was an o ion 415 offence under Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the [Emphasis Su upplied] 20. Upon examining g the facts of case in hand and in view o of the law laid down in A.M. Mohan (supra) and Mohd. Ibrahim (supra), in the absence of the essential ingredient t of “cheating” as defined under Section n 415 IPC, and further in the absence e of any material indicating induceme ent leading to delivery of property, both of which are sine qua non for c constituting an offence under Section 420 of IPC, the said charge cannot be sa aid to be made out even prima facie ag gainst the applicant Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026 6: MPHC-GWL:10222 15 Criminal Rev vision No.3252 of 2025 21. In view of the e aforesaid discussion and in the giv ven facts and circumstances of the pr resent case, this Court is of the considere ed opinion that the learned trial Court t has erred in framing the charge against t the applicant under Section 420 of I IPC, whereas the charges framed under Sections 467, 468 read with Section n 120-B of IPC are based on sufficien nt prima facie material and do not wa arrant any interference. 22. Accordingly, th he present criminal revision is partly allowed . The impugned order dated 04.06.2025 is hereby modified to the e extent that the charge framed against t the applicant under Section 420 of IPC is s quashed. The charges framed again st the applicant under Sections 467, 4 468 read with Section 120-B of IPC C are hereby affirmed. The learned tria al Court shall proceed with the trial in n accordance with law. 23. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding th he present revision and shall not be co onstrued as an expression on the merit ts of the case during trial. (AMI JU IT SETH) UDGE AK/- Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 19:35:11</div>