Yashodha Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Society Registered Under M.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Through Director Shri Mulchand Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
1 MCRC-48559-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48559 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030274342026
YASHODHA GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI SOCIETY REGISTERED
UNDER M.P. COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. THROUGH DIRECTOR
SHRI MULCHAND PARIHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION AND
ANR
Appearance:
Shri Chetan Kanungo and Shri Krishan Kumar Kushwah - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - PP for the State.
None for the respondent No.2, though served.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been preferred by the
petitioner-Society seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.65/2020
registered at Police Station University Road, District Gwalior, for offences
punishable under Section 292-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation
Act, 1956 and Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, along with all
consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as the petitioner-
Society is concerned.
2. The petitioner is Yashodha Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, a
registered cooperative housing society, represented through its Director Shri
Mulchand Parihar. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner-Society,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
2 MCRC-48559-2026
through its office bearers, undertook development of a residential colony/group

housing project known as "Yashoda Residency" situated over land bearing Survey
Nos.61 and 67, having a total area of 19,244 square metres, situated at Gram
Ohadpur, Tehsil and District Gwalior. The development permission for the
aforesaid project was granted by the competent authorities, subject to certain
conditions, including the obligation to provide dwelling units for persons
belonging to the economically weaker sections (EWS) and low-income groups
(LIG). As per the conditions of permission, the Society was required to construct
and provide EWS/LIG dwelling units in the prescribed proportion and transfer the
same to the competent authority. The allegation against the present
petitioner/society is that the petitioner-Society, through its office bearers, in
connivance with architect Atul Pathak, obtained a completion certificate from the
Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, without actually constructing the requisite EWS
dwelling units. On the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Municipal
Corporation, FIR bearing Crime No.65/2020 dated 14.02.2020 came to be
registered against the concerned office bearers and architect for the offences
punishable under Section 292-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation
Act, 1956. Subsequently, Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC were also
added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Society had
obtained the requisite development and building permissions from the competent
authorities and had undertaken the development of the project pursuant thereto. In
compliance with the conditions of the development permission, the Society also
executed a security mortgage deed dated 04.02.2011 in favour of the Municipal
Corporation, Gwalior, whereby approximately 25% of the proposed developed
area, including 32 EWS flats having a total land area of 768 square metres, was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
3 MCRC-48559-2026
mortgaged as security. According to the petitioner, after completion of the internal

development works, the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior itself executed a
mortgage-release deed dated 31.03.2015, thereby releasing the mortgaged
properties. The said document recorded that the internal development works had
been completed and the requisite completion certificate had been issued by the
competent authority. It is, therefore, contended that the statutory authority, after
undertaking its own exercise, had released the security furnished by the Society.
4. It is further argued in respect of maintainability of the petition that the
petitioner had earlier challenged the impugned FIR by filing M.Cr.C.
No.26686/2020 before this Court. The said petition was disposed of by a
coordinate Bench vide order dated 18.09.2020, observing that the basic
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 292-C of the Madhya Pradesh
Municipal Corporation Act appeared to be prima facie made out and that, since
the investigation was pending, it would not be appropriate to interfere at that
stage. The petitioner submits that subsequent to the aforesaid order, a material
change in the legal and factual circumstances has taken place. In particular, the
Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalik Vidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2021 (M.P. Act
No.22 of 2021), published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 01.09.2021,
substantially amended the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal
Corporation Act, 1956, including Sections 292-B and 292-C, and introduced a
new provision, namely, Section 292-BA, specifically providing for action against
violation of development permission. It is further submitted that, subsequent
thereto, the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, constituted an enquiry committee
and, after conducting an enquiry, cancelled the development permission and
building permission granted to the petitioner-Society vide order dated 02.09.2022,
by invoking Rule 25 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012. Another
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
4 MCRC-48559-2026
significant subsequent development relied upon by the petitioner is that the co-

accused architect, Atul Pathak, had also approached this Court by filing M.Cr.C.
No.23256/2023 seeking quashment of the very same FIR. The said petition was
allowed by this Court vide order dated 07.09.2026, and the FIR and consequential
proceedings were quashed insofar as the said co-accused were concerned. In the
aforesaid changed circumstances, the petitioner-Society has once again
approached this Court seeking quashment of the impugned FIR and consequential
proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is
maintainable notwithstanding the earlier dismissal of M.Cr.C. No.26686/2020, as
the present petition is founded upon substantial subsequent developments which
had not occurred when the earlier petition was decided. It is contended that the
legislative amendment of 2021 has materially altered the nature and scope of the
offences under Section 292-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act,
1956, while introducing a separate mechanism under Section 292-BA for dealing
with violations of conditions of development permission.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier order dated
18.09.2020 was passed at a stage when the investigation was pending and the
statutory provisions were yet to be amended. The coordinate Bench had not
examined the effect of the subsequent legislative amendment, nor could it have
considered the subsequent cancellation order dated 02.09.2022 or the order passed
in favour of the co-accused Atul Pathak on 07.09.2026. Therefore, the present
petition is not an attempt to seek review or reconsideration of the earlier order on
the same grounds but is based upon entirely subsequent circumstances.
7. Learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the unamended
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
5 MCRC-48559-2026
and amended provisions of Section 292-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal

Corporation Act, 1956. It is submitted that, under the unamended provision, the
expression "in breach of the requirements contemplated in this Act or the rules
made in this behalf" was couched in broad terms. However, after the amendment
of 2021, the Legislature has specifically defined the circumstances constituting the
offence of developing an unauthorised colony and the offence of violating
development permission.
8. It is further submitted that amended Section 292-C(1) applies to a
landowner or person who undertakes development of a colony without obtaining
permission under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
Similarly, Section 292-C(2) deals with a specific category of violation, namely,
transfer by sale or otherwise of land designated for the purposes mentioned in
Section 292-B(4), or undertaking construction other than that permissible on such
land.
9. According to learned counsel, the allegation in the present FIR is not that
the petitioner-Society developed a colony without obtaining permission or that it
transferred or undertook impermissible construction upon land designated for
civic infrastructure under Section 292-B(4). The allegation is confined to non-
construction of the EWS/LIG dwelling units stipulated under Section 292-B(2).
Such an allegation, even if accepted at its face value, does not fall within the
specific categories of offences now contemplated under Section 292-C(1) and (2).
10. Learned counsel further submits that the Legislature has simultaneously
introduced Section 292-BA, which specifically provides for action against
violation of development permission by encashment of bank guarantee, forfeiture
and disposal of mortgaged properties and recovery of any remaining amount as
arrears of land revenue. Thus, the legislative scheme, after the amendment,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
6 MCRC-48559-2026
provides a distinct statutory mechanism for enforcing the conditions of

development permission.
11. It is further argued that the Municipal Corporation itself had granted the
requisite development permission and had accepted the mortgage security
furnished by the Society. Subsequently, after recording completion of the internal
development works, the Corporation released the mortgaged property vide deed
dated 31.03.2015. Thereafter, the Corporation proceeded to cancel the
development and building permissions vide order dated 02.09.2022. This
subsequent action itself indicates that the dispute essentially relates to alleged non-
compliance with conditions of an existing permission and not development of an
unauthorised colony without permission.
12. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Trilok Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh , (2020) 10 SCC 763, placing
reliance upon the principle laid down in T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and Another ,
(1983) 1 SCC 177, to contend that a beneficial amendment mitigating the rigour
of penal law can be extended to pending proceedings. It is submitted that the
subsequent amendment has narrowed the scope of criminal liability and, therefore,
its beneficial effect deserves consideration in the present case.
13. So far as the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are
concerned, learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to identify any
forged document allegedly prepared by the petitioner-Society. Merely submitting
an application for issuance of a completion certificate, even if the contents thereof
are disputed or alleged to be incorrect, would not by itself constitute making of a
false document within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464 IPC. Unless the
foundational ingredients of forgery are established, the offences under Sections
467, 468 and 471 IPC cannot be sustained.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
7 MCRC-48559-2026
14. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj , (2018) 7 SCC 581, to contend that the
person who is alleged to have made the false document must be identified for
fastening criminal liability for forgery.
15. Learned counsel lastly submits that this Court has already quashed the
proceedings arising out of the very same FIR against the co-accused architect Atul
Pathak vide order dated 07.09.2026. The reasoning recorded therein concerning
the nature of the certificate, the independent action of the Municipal Corporation
and the absence of foundational ingredients of forgery is equally relevant to the
allegations made against the petitioner. On these grounds, learned counsel prays
for allowing the petition.
16. Per contra, learned PP for the State opposed the petition and submit that
the earlier petition preferred by the petitioner-Society against the same FIR had
already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2020. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate the same controversy by filing a
successive petition under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that the
amendment of 2021 cannot be construed as automatically wiping out the criminal
liability arising from acts committed prior to its enactment. According to the
respondents, the alleged acts were committed when the unamended provisions of
Section 292-C were in force, and the subsequent amendment would not
retrospectively absolve the petitioner from the consequences of the alleged
violations. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the obligation
to provide EWS/LIG dwelling units was an essential condition of the development
permission and the failure to comply with the same constitutes a serious violation
of the statutory requirements. The subsequent cancellation of development
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
8 MCRC-48559-2026
permission dated 02.09.2022 does not, according to the respondents, erase the

alleged illegality committed by the petitioner at the relevant time. It is also argued
that the mortgage-release deed dated 31.03.2015 cannot, by itself, establish that
all statutory obligations of the petitioner-Society stood fulfilled. The alleged non-
construction of EWS/LIG dwelling units and the circumstances in which the
completion certificate was obtained are matters requiring examination of the
relevant documents and evidence. With regard to the offences under Sections 120-
B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, learned PP submits that the petitioner-Society, through
its office bearers, allegedly acted in concert with the architect for obtaining the
completion certificate despite non-compliance with the stipulated conditions. The
question of whether the documents were prepared or used with dishonest intention
is a matter of investigation and trial. It is, therefore, contended that the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court ought not to be exercised at this stage. It is further
submitted that the order passed in favour of co-accused Atul Pathak cannot
automatically result in quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner-Society,
as the role attributed to the Society is distinct from that of the architect.
Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
17. None for the respondent No.2 though served.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the
impugned FIR, the earlier order dated 18.09.2020, the relevant statutory
provisions before and after the amendment of 2021, the documents relied upon by
the petitioner and the order dated 07.09.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.23256/2023.
19. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court considers it
appropriate to deal with the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the
present petition, in view of the earlier dismissal of M.Cr.C. No.26686/2020.
20. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Society had earlier challenged the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
9 MCRC-48559-2026
very same FIR by filing M.Cr.C. No.26686/2020, which was disposed of vide

order dated 18.09.2020. The relevant observation made by the coordinate Bench
in the said order reads as under:
"From the above, it is clear as daylight that basic ingredients for
constituting the offence punishable under Section 292-C of the 1956
Act appears to be prima facie made out. Since investigation is still
pending, this Court deems it proper not to say anything further lest it
may adversely affect the investigation."
21. The aforesaid observation undoubtedly deserves due consideration.
However, it is equally important to notice the context in which the same was
made. The coordinate Bench had declined to interfere primarily because the
investigation was pending and had consciously refrained from expressing any
further opinion on the merits of the matter. The said order, therefore, cannot be
construed as a final adjudication of the criminal liability of the petitioner in the
light of subsequent legislative and factual developments which had not then
occurred.
22. The principle governing successive petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is no longer res integra. In Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of
Delhi) and Another, (2019) 17 SCC 294, the Supreme Court held that a
subsequent petition invoking inherent jurisdiction is not barred merely because an
earlier petition seeking similar relief had been dismissed, particularly where
materially different facts or circumstances have subsequently emerged.
23. The aforesaid principle has also been considered and explained by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, 2023 INSC 955, wherein it has been held that there can be no blanket
rule that a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not lie in every
situation. At the same time, the Court cautioned that successive petitions cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
10 MCRC-48559-2026
entertained merely to raise pleas which were available to the litigant at the time of

filing the earlier petition. The maintainability of a subsequent petition would
depend upon the nature of the subsequent developments and the circumstances of
the individual case.
24. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court finds that the present petition is founded upon substantial subsequent
developments, which could not have been considered by the coordinate Bench
while passing the order dated 18.09.2020. These developments are:
(i) The enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalik Vidhi
(Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2021, whereby Sections 292-B and 292-C of
the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 were substituted
and a new Section 292-BA was introduced, substantially altering the
statutory framework governing development permission and its
violation;
(ii) The subsequent cancellation of development permission and
building permission by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, vide order
dated 02.09.2022, after conducting an enquiry;
(iii) The subsequent order dated 07.09.2026 passed by this Court in
M.Cr.C. No.23256/2023, whereby the proceedings arising out of the
very same FIR have been quashed insofar as co-accused architect Atul
Pathak is concerned.
25. These developments are not merely additional grounds or arguments
based upon facts already existing at the time of the earlier petition. The legislative
amendment itself came into existence after the earlier order, while the subsequent
administrative and judicial developments also occurred thereafter. The present
petition, therefore, cannot be treated as an attempt to seek review or recall of the
earlier order.
26. This Court is conscious that the inherent jurisdiction cannot be
exercised to circumvent the statutory prohibition against review of a final order.
However, the present petition does not seek reconsideration of the earlier order on
the same material. It seeks an independent examination of the consequences
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
11 MCRC-48559-2026
flowing from subsequent changes in the statutory framework and subsequent

developments having a direct bearing upon the continuance of the criminal
proceedings.
27. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments and the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in Anil Khadkiwala (supra) and Bhisham Lal
Verma (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is
maintainable. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents, therefore,
deserves to be rejected.
28. Having held the petition to be maintainable, the principal question
which arises for consideration is whether, in the light of the subsequent
amendment of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the
allegations contained in the impugned FIR continue to disclose the commission of
an offence under Section 292-C of the said Act.
29. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to examine the
legislative change brought about by the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalik Vidhi
(Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2021 (M.P. Act No.22 of 2021), which received the
assent of the Governor on 26.08.2021 and was published in the Madhya Pradesh
Gazette (Extraordinary) on 01.09.2021. Prior to the amendment, Section 292-C of
the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, inter alia, provided as
under:

"292-C. Punishment for illegal colonization:
(1) A Colonizer who, in contravention of the provisions of Section 172
of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959) and
the Rules made thereunder, diverts the land or part thereof, commits an
offence of illegal diversion of land.
(2) A Colonizer who divides his lands into plots or the land of any
other person with the object of establishing a colony in breach of the
requirements contemplated in this Act or the rules made in this behalf,
commits an offence of illegal colonization.
(3) Whoever commits or abets the commission of an offence of illegal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
12 MCRC-48559-2026
diversion or illegal colonization shall be punished with an
imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than seven
years and with a minimum fine of ten thousand rupees, and the Court
may in passing the judgment in respect of any such offence order the
accused to pay to the corporation, such amount of compensation as
specified in the judgment, taking into consideration the amount
required to be incurred towards the development of such illegal colony,
and such offence shall be a cognizable offence.
(4) Whoever constructs a building in an area of illegal diversion or
illegal colonization commits an offence of illegal construction."


30. After the amendment introduced by the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalik
Vidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2021, Section 292-C was substituted and now
reads, insofar as relevant, as under:
"292-C. Offences and punishment:
(1) The land-owner or person or both, as the case may be, who
undertakes the development of a colony without obtaining the
permission under the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder,
commits the offence of developing an unauthorized colony.
(2) Any colonizer who transfers by sale or otherwise any land
designated for purpose mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 292-B
or undertakes construction other than that permissible on such land
commits the offence of violating the permission.
(3) The offences under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be cognizable but
no enquiry or inquiry or investigation shall be carried out except on a
written complaint by the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him
in this regard.
(4) Whosoever commits or abets the commission of an offence
mentioned under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be punished with
imprisonment which shall not be less than three years but which may
extend up to seven years and with fine which may extend up to ten
lakhs rupees."
31. A bare comparison of the aforesaid provisions reveals that the
Legislature has materially restructured the nature of the acts constituting criminal
offences under Section 292-C. Under the earlier provision, the expression "in
breach of the requirements contemplated in this Act or the rules made in this
behalf" was of wider amplitude. The substituted provision, however, identifies
two specific categories of prohibited conduct: first, development of a colony
without obtaining statutory permission; and secondly, transfer or impermissible
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
13 MCRC-48559-2026
construction upon land designated for the purposes mentioned in Section 292-

B(4).
32. The amendment is not confined to a mere alteration in the quantum of
punishment. It introduces a more specific statutory classification of the acts which
constitute unauthorised colonisation and violation of permission. The amended
provision, therefore, has to be read in conjunction with the substituted Section
292-B and the newly inserted Section 292-BA.
33. In this regard, it is necessary to notice that amended Section 292-B
deals with permission to develop colonies. Sub-section (2) thereof requires the
colonizer to provide fully developed plots or constructed dwelling units for
persons belonging to economically weaker sections and low-income groups. On
the other hand, sub-section (4) deals with civic infrastructure, such as roads, open
spaces, water supply, electricity, sewerage and recreational areas, in accordance
with the permission granted by the competent authority. The Legislature has,
therefore, separately dealt with the obligation to provide EWS/LIG plots or
dwelling units under Section 292-B(2) and the obligation to provide civic
infrastructure under Section 292-B(4).
34. More importantly, the newly inserted Section 292-BA specifically
provides for "Action against violation of permission". The said provision
authorises the Commissioner to encash the bank guarantee or forfeit and dispose
of the properties mortgaged under Section 292-B(5), to the extent required, in the
event of violation of the terms and conditions of permission. It further provides for
recovery of any shortfall as arrears of land revenue, after following the prescribed
procedure and providing an opportunity of hearing to the colonizer.
35. The introduction of Section 292-BA assumes considerable significance
in the present case. The Legislature has provided a separate statutory mechanism
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
14 MCRC-48559-2026
for dealing with violations of development permission, including recovery through

the security furnished by the colonizer. The provision indicates a legislative
distinction between development of an unauthorised colony without permission
and violation of conditions attached to an existing permission.
36. When the aforesaid provisions are read harmoniously, it becomes
evident that the amended Section 292-C(1) is directed against development
undertaken without obtaining the requisite permission, whereas Section 292-C(2)
deals with the specified acts concerning land designated for civic infrastructure
under Section 292-B(4). Violations of the terms and conditions of permission are
also addressed through the mechanism provided under Section 292-BA.
37. In the present case, the allegation in the impugned FIR is not that the
petitioner-Society had undertaken development of the colony without obtaining
any permission whatsoever. Rather, the prosecution itself proceeds on the
admitted position that the petitioner-Society had obtained development and
building permissions from the competent authorities in respect of the project
known as "Yashoda Residency". The specific allegation is that the petitioner-
Society failed to construct the requisite EWS/LIG dwelling units and, despite such
alleged non-compliance, obtained a completion certificate from the Municipal
Corporation. Thus, the controversy essentially concerns alleged non-compliance
with a condition attached to an existing development permission. Such an
allegation has to be examined in the context of the legislative distinction
introduced by the 2021 amendment.
38. The obligation concerning provision of EWS/LIG dwelling units is
specifically dealt with under Section 292-B(2). However, amended Section 292-
C(2), while defining the offence of violation of permission, refers to transfer or
impermissible construction upon land designated for the purposes mentioned in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
15 MCRC-48559-2026
Section 292-B(4). It does not expressly include non-provision of EWS/LIG plots

or dwelling units contemplated under Section 292-B(2). The distinction is
material. The Legislature, while substituting Section 292-C, has specifically
identified the acts which would attract criminal prosecution. This Court cannot
enlarge the scope of a penal provision by importing into it acts which have not
been included in the substituted provision, particularly when the Legislature has
separately provided a mechanism for dealing with violations of
permission. Therefore, even if the allegation that the requisite EWS/LIG dwelling
units were not constructed is accepted at its face value, the same, by itself, does
not satisfy the essential ingredients of development of an unauthorised colony
under amended Section 292-C(1), because the project was admittedly undertaken
pursuant to permissions granted by the competent authorities.
39. Similarly, there is no specific allegation in the impugned FIR that the
petitioner-Society transferred by sale or otherwise any land designated for the
purposes contemplated under Section 292-B(4), or undertook construction other
than that permissible upon such land, so as to attract amended Section 292-
C(2). The subsequent cancellation of the development permission and building
permission by the Municipal Corporation vide order dated 02.09.2022 does not
alter this fundamental position. Rather, the said order demonstrates that the
dispute was examined by the Municipal Corporation in the context of alleged
violations of an existing development permission. The Corporation invoked Rule
25 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012, and proceeded to cancel the
permissions after conducting an enquiry.
40. The fact that the competent authority subsequently cancelled the
permission cannot be equated with a finding that the petitioner-Society had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
16 MCRC-48559-2026
originally undertaken development without obtaining permission. The distinction

between absence of permission and subsequent violation of conditions attached to
an existing permission cannot be obliterated.
41. This Court is conscious that the alleged acts relate to a period when the
unamended Section 292-C was in force and that the subsequent amendment does
not, merely by reason of its enactment, automatically erase every liability arising
under the earlier law. However, the question before this Court is not whether a
subsequent enactment can retrospectively create or extinguish every legal
consequence of a past act. The question is whether, in the peculiar circumstances
of the present case, the subsequent beneficial legislative framework can be taken
into consideration while examining the justification for continuation of criminal
proceedings.
42. In T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and Another , (1983) 1 SCC 177, the
Supreme Court explained that while an ex post facto law creating a new offence or
enhancing punishment cannot be applied retrospectively, a subsequent beneficial
amendment reducing the rigour of penal consequences may be extended to
pending proceedings. The principle of beneficial construction was reiterated in
Trilok Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh , (2020) 10 SCC 763.
43. The principle emerging from the aforesaid decisions is that the
prohibition contained in Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India is directed
against retrospective criminalisation and enhancement of punishment, whereas a
subsequent legislative measure mitigating the penal consequences may, in
appropriate circumstances, receive beneficial application. In the present case, the
amendment of 2021 has not merely reduced the punishment prescribed under
Section 292-C. It has substituted the provision by identifying the specific acts
which constitute criminal offences and has simultaneously introduced Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
17 MCRC-48559-2026
292-BA to provide a separate mechanism for dealing with violations of

development permission. Consequently, where the prosecution allegation is
confined to non-compliance with a condition of an existing permission and the
alleged act does not fall within the specific categories of offences contemplated by
the substituted Section 292-C, continuation of criminal prosecution merely by
relying upon the wider language of the earlier provision would require careful
scrutiny.
44. This Court is of the considered view that, in the facts of the present
case, the legislative restructuring cannot be ignored merely because the FIR was
registered prior to the amendment. The amended statutory scheme provides
significant guidance in determining whether the alleged conduct is of a nature
which the Legislature presently considers appropriate for criminal prosecution or
whether it is to be dealt with through the separate statutory mechanism governing
violation of development permission.
45. This Court is not laying down a general proposition that every
prosecution instituted under the unamended Section 292-C stands automatically
extinguished by the 2021 amendment. The conclusion is confined to the peculiar
facts of the present case, where the project was admittedly developed pursuant to
statutory permissions, the FIR alleges non-construction of EWS/LIG dwelling
units, and there is no specific allegation of development without permission or
transfer or impermissible construction upon land designated under Section 292-
B(4).
46. In such circumstances, permitting the criminal prosecution under
Section 292-C to continue, without the allegations satisfying the specific
ingredients of the substituted provision, would amount to an unwarranted
continuation of criminal proceedings. The Municipal Corporation, if otherwise
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
18 MCRC-48559-2026
entitled under law, would remain at liberty to pursue the appropriate statutory

remedies for enforcement of the conditions of permission, subject to the
applicable law.
47. There is another aspect of the matter which assumes considerable
significance. The record indicates that the petitioner-Society had executed a
security mortgage deed dated 04.02.2011 in favour of the Municipal Corporation,
Gwalior, whereby certain properties, including the land earmarked for EWS flats,
were mortgaged as security.
48. Subsequently, the Municipal Corporation itself executed a mortgage-
release deed dated 31.03.2015. The said document records completion of the
internal development works and release of the mortgaged properties by the
competent Municipal authority. This Court is conscious that the mortgage-release
deed, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive proof that every condition of the
development permission, including the obligation relating to EWS/LIG dwelling
units, stood fulfilled. Nevertheless, the document is a relevant circumstance which
cannot be ignored while examining the nature of the allegations and the role
attributed to the petitioner-Society. It is particularly relevant that the statutory
authority itself processed the request for completion of internal development
works and thereafter released the mortgage. The FIR does not allege that the
mortgage-release deed dated 31.03.2015 was forged or fabricated by the
petitioner-Society. The grievance essentially relates to the alleged non-
construction of EWS/LIG dwelling units and the circumstances in which the
completion certificate was obtained. Thus, the material available on record
indicates that the dispute substantially concerns the alleged non-fulfilment of
conditions attached to an existing development permission. The subsequent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
19 MCRC-48559-2026
cancellation order dated 02.09.2022 also proceeds in the context of violation of

the permission granted by the competent authority. These circumstances, when
considered cumulatively with the legislative amendment of 2021, reinforce the
conclusion that the controversy is essentially one concerning compliance with
development permission and the statutory consequences flowing from any alleged
breach thereof.
49. Another relevant subsequent development is the order dated 07.09.2026
passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.23256/2023, whereby the proceedings arising
out of the very same FIR were quashed insofar as co-accused architect Atul Pathak
was concerned. In the said proceedings, this Court examined the nature of the
certificate dated 23.03.2015 attributed to the architect, the subsequent action taken
by the Municipal Corporation and the applicability of Sections 467, 468 and 471
IPC. It was observed that the statutory decision relating to development
completion and mortgage release had ultimately been taken by the competent
Municipal authority after its own inspection and satisfaction. The architect, who
had merely rendered professional services, could not automatically be held
criminally liable for every alleged irregularity in the project. It is true that the role
of the petitioner-Society is not identical to that of the architect. The petitioner-
Society was the entity responsible for undertaking the project and its obligations
under the development permission cannot be equated with the limited professional
role of the architect. Nevertheless, the findings recorded in the aforesaid order
concerning the nature of the completion certificate, the independent statutory
action of the Municipal Corporation and the absence of foundational ingredients of
forgery have a direct bearing upon the allegations arising from the same
transaction.
50. The said order is not being treated as automatically exonerating the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
20 MCRC-48559-2026
petitioner-Society. Rather, it is being considered as a relevant subsequent judicial

development, particularly in relation to the common documentary material and the
legal ingredients of the offences alleged in the present FIR. The reasoning
recorded therein, to the extent applicable to the common allegations and
documents, deserves due consideration to ensure consistency in the adjudication
of proceedings arising from the same transaction.
51. The allegations under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC also require
independent consideration. It is well settled that the existence of a forged
document is the foundational requirement for attracting the offences of forgery
and use of a forged document as genuine. Section 467 IPC deals with forgery of
specified categories of documents, including valuable securities, wills and other
instruments falling within the provision. Section 468 IPC requires forgery for the
purpose of cheating, whereas Section 471 IPC requires fraudulent or dishonest use
of a forged document as genuine, with knowledge or reason to believe that the
document is forged.
52. In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj , (2018) 7 SCC 581, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court emphasised the importance of identifying the person who made the
false document for fastening criminal liability for forgery. The offence of forgery
cannot be mechanically attributed to a person merely because such person may
have derived some benefit from a document. In the present case, the allegation is
essentially that the petitioner-Society submitted an application for obtaining a
completion certificate despite alleged non-construction of the requisite EWS/LIG
dwelling units. However, the prosecution has not identified any specific document
which was fabricated by the petitioner-Society in the manner contemplated under
Sections 463 and 464 IPC.
53. The completion certificate and the mortgage-release document were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
21 MCRC-48559-2026
issued/executed by the competent Municipal authority. There is no specific

allegation that the petitioner-Society fabricated the signature of any Municipal
officer, impersonated a public authority, forged an official seal, or created a
document purporting to have been issued by a person or authority who had not
issued it. Even assuming that the application submitted by the Society contained
an incorrect statement regarding compliance with the conditions of permission, an
incorrect or disputed assertion in a document does not, by itself, necessarily
constitute the making of a false document within the meaning of the provisions
relating to forgery. The prosecution must establish the requisite ingredients of
making a false document as contemplated under law.
54. Similarly, Section 471 IPC cannot be attracted in the absence of an
identified forged document which the petitioner-Society is alleged to have
knowingly or fraudulently used as genuine. When the foundational requirement of
forgery itself is not disclosed from the material placed before this Court, the
allegations under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC cannot be sustained merely on
the basis of an alleged breach of conditions of development
permission. Consequently, this Court finds that the allegations, even if accepted at
their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the aforesaid offences
against the petitioner-Society.
55. So far as the offence under Section 120-B IPC is concerned, it is settled
that criminal conspiracy requires an agreement or meeting of minds between two
or more persons to commit an illegal act or to accomplish a legal act by illegal
means. The mere fact that the petitioner-Society engaged an architect, submitted
an application for completion certificate or acted through its office bearers in
relation to the development project cannot, by itself, establish the existence of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
22 MCRC-48559-2026
criminal agreement. The prosecution must disclose some material indicating a

conscious agreement or understanding between the persons concerned to commit
the alleged offence. Mere association, professional engagement or participation in
a common transaction, without material indicating the requisite meeting of minds,
is insufficient to sustain an allegation of criminal conspiracy. In the present case,
the allegation of conspiracy substantially rests upon the assertion that the
petitioner-Society, through its office bearers, acted in connivance with the
architect for obtaining the completion certificate. However, in view of the nature
of the documents, the independent action of the Municipal Corporation and the
absence of foundational ingredients of forgery, no specific material has been
demonstrated before this Court which would establish the requisite agreement to
commit an illegal act. The fact that the proceedings against co-accused Atul
Pathak have been quashed is not, by itself, sufficient to extinguish the charge of
conspiracy against the petitioner. However, when the allegations and material are
examined as a whole, no independent material disclosing the essential ingredients
of a criminal conspiracy against the petitioner-Society is evident. Therefore, the
allegation under Section 120-B IPC also cannot be sustained merely on the basis
of the petitioner's association with the project and the disputed completion
certificate.
56. This Court is conscious of the settled limitations governing the exercise
of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The Court is not required
to conduct a mini-trial or record findings upon disputed questions of fact.
However, where the uncontroverted material and the admitted statutory
framework demonstrate that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are
not disclosed, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of
the process of law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
23 MCRC-48559-2026
57. In the present case, the following circumstances assume significance:

(i) The petitioner-Society had obtained development and
building permissions from the competent authorities for the project in
question. The FIR itself proceeds on the premise that permissions had
been granted.
(ii) The principal allegation against the petitioner is non-
construction of EWS/LIG dwelling units, which relates to an alleged
violation of the conditions of an existing development permission.
(iii) The Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalik Vidhi (Sanshodhan)
Adhiniyam, 2021 has substituted Section 292-C and introduced Section
292-BA, thereby restructuring the statutory framework governing
unauthorised colonisation and violation of development permission.
(iv) The amended Section 292-C(1) specifically deals with
development of a colony without obtaining permission, whereas
Section 292-C(2) deals with transfer or impermissible construction
upon land designated for the purposes mentioned in Section 292-B(4).
The specific allegation concerning non-provision of EWS/LIG
dwelling units under Section 292-B(2) does not, by itself, fall within
either of these categories.
(v) Section 292-BA provides a separate statutory mechanism for
dealing with violation of conditions of development permission,
including encashment of bank guarantee and forfeiture or disposal of
mortgaged properties.
(vi) The Municipal Corporation itself had executed the
mortgage-release deed dated 31.03.2015 after processing the matter
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
24 MCRC-48559-2026
and had subsequently cancelled the development and building

permissions vide order dated 02.09.2022.
(vii) The proceedings arising from the same FIR have already
been quashed insofar as co-accused architect Atul Pathak is concerned,
vide order dated 07.09.2026.
(viii) The material placed before this Court does not disclose the
foundational ingredients of forgery, use of forged documents or
criminal conspiracy against the petitioner-Society.
58. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances leads this Court to
the conclusion that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner-
Society would not advance the cause of justice. The statutory amendment of 2021
is a material subsequent development which substantially alters the legal
framework governing the allegations in question. The distinction between
development without permission and violation of conditions attached to an
existing permission has to be given due effect.
59. It is reiterated that this Court is not expressing any opinion regarding
the actual compliance or otherwise of the petitioner-Society with every condition
of the development permission. Nor is this Court preventing the Municipal
Corporation from taking such administrative or statutory action as may be
permissible under law. The limited question is whether the allegations in the
impugned FIR, when examined in the light of the subsequent legislative
amendment and the material placed on record, justify continuation of the criminal
prosecution against the petitioner-Society.
60. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33696
25 MCRC-48559-2026
Society are not disclosed and continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings

would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The case, therefore, warrants
interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528
of the BNSS, 2023.
61. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR bearing Crime No.65/2020
dated 14.02.2020 registered at Police Station University Road, District Gwalior,
for offences punishable under Section 292-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal
Corporation Act, 1956 and Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and all
consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed insofar
as the petitioner -Yashodha Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit is concerned.
62. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not preclude the Municipal
Corporation, Gwalior, from taking such appropriate administrative or statutory
action, if otherwise permissible under law, in respect of any alleged violation of
the development permission, in accordance with the applicable statutory
provisions and after following the prescribed procedure.
63. It is further clarified that the observations made herein are confined to
the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression
of opinion upon any independent civil, administrative or statutory liability of the
petitioner-Society.
64. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
65. Petition allowed and disposed of.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/5/2026
11:13:37 AM