Laviraj Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
1 MCRC-31067-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31067 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030171212026
LAVIRAJ AGRAWAL AND ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Praem Singh Bhadoria with Shri Chetan Kanungo and
Shri Rajmani Bansal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav- Advocate for respondent
No.2/complainant.
Mrs. Kalpana Parmar - PP for the State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been
preferred by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR No.141/2026 dated
27.06.2026 registered at Police Station University, District Gwalior, for the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 338 and 336(3) of the
BNS, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as the
present petitioners are concerned.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the
complainant claims to be the owner of land bearing Survey Nos.495, 530,
531 and 538, admeasuring 6 Bigha 16 Biswa, situated at Village Malanpur,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
2 MCRC-31067-2026
District Gwalior, which was allegedly purchased by his father through a

registered sale deed dated 04.06.1973. It is the case of the complainant that,
after the death of his father in the year 1984-85, the names of certain
persons, namely, Balwinder alias Palwinder Kaur and Surendra Singh, were
allegedly entered in the revenue records in respect of a portion of the land
bearing Survey No.495, admeasuring 1 Bigha, in connivance with the
officials of the Revenue Department. It is further alleged that the revenue
records pertaining to the period 1999-2004 were deleted or
removed. According to the complainant, on the basis of such allegedly
forged revenue entries and documents, Balwinder Kaur and Surendra Singh
executed a registered sale deed dated 31.03.2021 in favour of Sumer Singh
Kushwah, who subsequently sold the land in question to different persons by
executing separate sale deeds in respect of smaller plots. On the basis of
these allegations, the complainant initially submitted complaints dated
23.04.2024 before the Station House Officer, Police Station University, and
the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. Subsequently, the complainant
preferred an application under Section 175 of the BNSS before the
competent Magistrate. In the said application, certain additional allegations
were introduced against the present petitioners. It was alleged that Petitioner
No.1, who is an Advocate, had filed an application purportedly on behalf of
the complainant and his brothers for withdrawal of Appeal No.187/2019-20,
titled as Gokul Singh & Others Vs. Balwinder Kaur & Others, pending
before the Court of Commissioner, Gwalior Division, by allegedly forging
their signatures. It was further alleged that the said appeal was withdrawn on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
3 MCRC-31067-2026
the basis of such application. An additional allegation was levelled against

Petitioner No.2, who is engaged in the vocation of issuing stamp papers, that
she had issued a stamp paper of Rs.1,000/- in connection with an agreement
dated 09.07.2021, which was alleged to be a fabricated document.
3. The JMFC, Gwalior, vide order dated 11.03.2025, allowed the
application under Section 175 of the BNSS and directed registration of an
FIR. The said order was challenged by the petitioners along with Sumer
Singh Kushwah by filing Criminal Revision No.105/2025. The learned
Revisional Court, vide order dated 30.05.2025, allowed the revision and
remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate for passing a fresh order in
accordance with the provisions of Section 175(3) of the BNSS. While doing
so, the Revisional Court specifically observed that the order of the
Magistrate had been passed without calling for the requisite police report.
The Revisional Court also took note of the fact that Petitioner No.1 was
engaged by the complainant and his family members as their Advocate to
prosecute the revenue appeal. It was further noticed that, as per the order
dated 22.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, the
appellants therein had appeared in person and informed the authority about
the settlement between the parties. The Revisional Court also observed that,
in the absence of any specific material indicating the participation of
Petitioner No.2 in the alleged fabrication, mere issuance of stamp paper
would not make her criminally liable. Pursuant to the aforesaid remand, an
enquiry was conducted by the police and a detailed status report dated
26.09.2025 was submitted before the learned Magistrate. The police report,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
4 MCRC-31067-2026
inter alia, recorded that the complainant had also preferred Appeal

No.19/2023-24 against Sumer Singh before the Additional Collector,
Gwalior, which was also withdrawn on the basis of a settlement. It was
further noticed that the complainant had only a one-sixth share in the
disputed property and that the other co-sharers had not raised any similar
grievance, having settled their respective claims. Significantly, the police
report recorded that, despite recording the detailed statements of the
complainant, no specific allegation had emerged against the present
petitioners. The police also expressed the view that the complaint appeared
to have been filed with an intention to exert pressure upon the other side for
obtaining further monetary consideration. However, despite the aforesaid
police report, the JMFC, Gwalior, vide order dated 05.12.2025, directed
registration of an FIR against the present petitioners. The said order was
challenged by the petitioners by filing Criminal Revision No.379/2025,
which came to be dismissed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge,
Gwalior, vide order dated 30.05.2026. Thereafter, FIR No.141/2026 dated
27.06.2026 came to be registered against the petitioners for the aforesaid
offences. Hence, the present petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as
neither the original complaints dated 23.04.2024 nor the subsequent police
enquiry disclosed any specific act or criminal involvement of the present
petitioners. It is contended that the allegations against the petitioners were
introduced subsequently by way of material improvements in the application
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
5 MCRC-31067-2026
filed under Section 175 of the BNSS, and the petitioners have been

implicated without there being any independent material indicating their
involvement in the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that
Petitioner No.1 is an Advocate by profession and had been engaged by the
complainant and his family members to represent them in the proceedings
before the Revenue Authorities. The act attributed to Petitioner No.1 is
confined to filing an application in the pending revenue appeal on behalf of
the parties whom he was representing. It is submitted that the order dated
22.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, specifically
records the personal appearance of the appellants and the fact that they had
informed the authority about the settlement. The said order has never been
challenged by the complainant before any competent forum and continues to
hold the field. It is, therefore, contended that when the competent revenue
authority itself recorded the personal appearance of the parties and their
decision to settle the dispute, the subsequent allegation that the appeal was
withdrawn exclusively on the basis of an application containing forged
signatures becomes highly doubtful. It is further submitted that there is no
allegation that either of the petitioners actually forged the signatures of the
complainant or his brothers, nor is there any material to demonstrate that
Petitioner No.1 had any prior knowledge of any alleged forgery or had
entered into any agreement or conspiracy with the other accused persons.
5. So far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, learned counsel submits that
the only allegation against her is that she issued an e-stamp paper of
Rs.1,000/- in her capacity as a licensed service provider. There is no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
6 MCRC-31067-2026
allegation that she prepared the agreement dated 09.07.2021, participated in

its execution, forged any signature, impersonated any person or had
knowledge that the document was allegedly fabricated. Mere issuance of a
stamp paper, in the ordinary course of her vocation, cannot constitute an
offence of cheating, forgery or criminal conspiracy.
6. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the
order dated 30.05.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.105/2025, wherein
the Revisional Court had specifically considered the allegations against both
the petitioners and recorded that no specific material indicating their criminal
involvement was available. It is submitted that even after the matter was
remanded and a police enquiry was conducted, no fresh incriminating
material emerged against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate, while
directing registration of the FIR, failed to properly consider the aforesaid
material and the subsequent FIR also does not disclose the necessary
ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners.
7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hiralal Jain Vs.
Delhi Administration, AIR 1972 SC 2598, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the criminal liability of an Advocate in the absence of
material establishing prior knowledge or an antecedent agreement with the
principal accused. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision in Ranjit
Singh Bath & Another Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Another ,
Criminal Appeal No.4313 of 2024, decided on 06.03.2025, in support of the
submission that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under the provisions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
7 MCRC-31067-2026
governing investigation at the instance of a complainant cannot be exercised

mechanically, without due application of mind to the statutory requirements.
On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the petition be allowed
and the impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings, insofar as
the present petitioners are concerned, be quashed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as
learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the petition and submit that the
allegations made in the complaint disclose serious offences relating to
cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy in respect of the disputed property.
It is contended that the complainant has alleged that the revenue records
were manipulated and that documents were subsequently prepared and
utilised for creating rights in favour of third parties. It is further submitted
that the alleged application for withdrawal of the revenue appeal and the
agreement dated 09.07.2021 are matters which require proper
investigation. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the mere fact
that Petitioner No.1 was practising as an Advocate or that Petitioner No.2
was engaged in issuing stamp papers would not, by itself, confer immunity
from criminal prosecution if their involvement in the alleged offences is
ultimately established. It is, therefore, contended that the investigation should
be permitted to proceed so that the actual role of the petitioners and the other
accused persons may be ascertained. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is
prayed for.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
8 MCRC-31067-2026
10. Before proceeding to examine the rival submissions, it would be

apposite to reiterate that the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court and to secure the ends of justice. Although the power to quash
criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly and with due
circumspection, this Court is not precluded from interfering where the
allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission
of any offence against the accused persons or where the continuation of
criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
11. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners require
examination independently, having regard to their respective roles. It is not
in dispute from the material placed on record that the principal dispute
essentially pertains to the ownership and transfer of land bearing Survey
No.495 situated at Village Malanpur, District Gwalior, and the alleged
manipulation of revenue records. The petitioners, however, have not been
attributed any direct role in the alleged manipulation of the revenue entries
or execution of the registered sale deed dated 31.03.2021.
12. The allegation against Petitioner No.1 is essentially that, while
representing the complainant and his family members as an Advocate, he
filed an application seeking withdrawal of the revenue appeal allegedly
containing forged signatures of the appellants. The allegation against
Petitioner No.2 is limited to issuance of the stamp paper which was
subsequently utilised in connection with the agreement dated 09.07.2021.
13. This Court finds considerable force in the submission advanced on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
9 MCRC-31067-2026
behalf of the petitioners that the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the

Commissioner, Gwalior Division, assumes considerable significance in the
facts of the present case. A perusal of the material placed on record indicates
that the competent authority, while disposing of the revenue appeal as
withdrawn, specifically recorded that the appellants had appeared in person
and had informed the authority about the settlement between the parties.
14. It is an admitted position the complainant has not challenged the
correctness or validity of the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2021 before any
competent forum. The said order, therefore, continues to operate and its
existence cannot be brushed aside while examining the allegations levelled
against the petitioners. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the
order of the Commissioner itself records the personal appearance of the
respondents and their statement regarding settlement, the allegation that the
appeal was withdrawn solely on the basis of an application containing forged
signatures requires to be examined in that factual background. The
complainant cannot selectively rely upon the alleged application for
withdrawal while completely ignoring the subsequent judicial order
recording the personal appearance of the parties and their decision to settle
the dispute.
15. It is also noteworthy that no specific material has been brought to
the notice of this Court to demonstrate that the present petitioners themselves
forged or prepared the alleged signatures of the complainant or his brothers.
There is no material indicating that Petitioner No.1 impersonated any of the
appellants or that he had prior knowledge that the application submitted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
10 MCRC-31067-2026
before the Commissioner contained forged signatures. The mere fact that an

application was filed by an Advocate on behalf of his clients, in the course of
professional representation, cannot, in the absence of further incriminating
material, be treated as sufficient to establish his participation in a criminal
conspiracy.
16. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hiralal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration , (supra). In
the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the criminal liability of
an Advocate who had filed applications and vakalatnamas on behalf of
persons allegedly involved in fraudulent activities. The Supreme Court
observed that, in the absence of evidence suggesting prior knowledge of the
fraudulent conduct of the clients or any antecedent concert between the
Advocate and the other accused persons, the mere performance of acts which
an Advocate is authorised to perform in the ordinary course of his profession
would not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy.
17. The relevant principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
squarely deserves consideration in the facts of the present case. Here also,
the allegations against Petitioner No.1 arise essentially from the acts
allegedly performed by him in his professional capacity as an Advocate.
Neither the impugned FIR nor the material placed on record discloses any
independent circumstance indicating that Petitioner No.1 had prior
knowledge of the alleged forgery or had entered into any antecedent
agreement with the principal accused persons for committing any illegal act.
18. It is settled that the mere professional association of an Advocate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
11 MCRC-31067-2026
with a person subsequently accused of an offence cannot, by itself, be treated

as proof of criminal conspiracy. There must be some material indicating a
meeting of minds or intentional participation in the alleged illegal act. Such
material is conspicuously absent in the present case. The position of
Petitioner No.2 is no different. The only allegation against her is that she
issued an e-stamp paper of Rs.1,000/- which was subsequently used in
connection with the agreement dated 09.07.2021. There is absolutely no
specific allegation that Petitioner No.2 prepared the said agreement,
participated in its execution, forged any signature or had knowledge of any
alleged fabrication.
19. The mere issuance of stamp paper in the ordinary course of a
licensed vocation cannot, in the absence of any material indicating
knowledge, intention or participation, be elevated to the level of criminal
conspiracy or forgery. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate any
material suggesting that Petitioner No.2 had entered into an agreement with
the other accused persons or had intentionally facilitated the commission of
the alleged offences.
20. Another significant circumstance which cannot be overlooked is
the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Revisional Court in
Criminal Revision No.105/2025. While allowing the revision and remitting
the matter to the learned Magistrate, the Revisional Court specifically
considered the allegations against the present petitioners. In respect of
Petitioner No.1, the Revisional Court took note of the order passed by the
Commissioner recording the personal appearance of the parties and their
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
12 MCRC-31067-2026
settlement. In respect of Petitioner No.2, it was observed that mere issuance

of stamp paper, without any specific allegation regarding her participation in
the alleged fabrication or conspiracy, would not make her criminally liable.
21. No doubt, the aforesaid observations were made while considering
the legality of the earlier order passed by the learned Magistrate and the
matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Nevertheless, the circumstances noticed by the Revisional Court were
material and required due consideration, particularly when the subsequent
police enquiry did not bring forth any fresh incriminating material against
the petitioners.
22. It is further apparent from the status report dated 26.09.2025
submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station University, Gwalior,
that the police, after conducting an enquiry pursuant to the remand order, did
not find any specific material indicating the involvement of the present
petitioners. Rather, the status report records that even after recording the
detailed statements of the complainant, no allegation whatsoever had
emerged against the petitioners.
23. The police report also refers to the fact that the complainant had a
one-sixth share in the disputed property and that other co-sharers had settled
their respective claims. It further records the possibility that the present
complaint was being pursued with an intention to exert pressure upon the
other side for obtaining further monetary consideration.
24. This Court is conscious of the fact that the opinion expressed by
the police in its status report is not, by itself, conclusive of the innocence of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
13 MCRC-31067-2026
the petitioners. However, when such a report is considered cumulatively with

the absence of any specific allegation in the original complaints, the
observations of the Revisional Court and, most importantly, the
unchallenged order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner, it
assumes considerable relevance in examining whether continuation of
criminal proceedings against the petitioners would serve any legitimate
purpose.
25. This Court also finds substance in the contention that the
allegations against the petitioners were introduced by way of subsequent
improvements. The original complaints dated 23.04.2024 submitted before
the Station House Officer and the Superintendent of Police did not contain
any specific allegation against either of the present petitioners. The
allegations concerning the alleged forged application for withdrawal of the
revenue appeal and issuance of stamp paper surfaced subsequently in the
application under Section 175 of the BNSS dated 25.10.2024.
26. Although subsequent elaboration of allegations cannot, in every
case, be treated as sufficient ground for quashing criminal proceedings, in the
present case the subsequent allegations are required to be assessed in the
light of the contemporaneous judicial order recording the personal
appearance of the parties and the subsequent police enquiry, which did not
disclose any specific incriminating material against the petitioners.
27. In the decision of the Honb'le Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh Bath
& Another Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Another , Criminal Appeal
No.4313 of 2024, decided on 06.03.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
14 MCRC-31067-2026
emphasised the necessity of compliance with the statutory safeguards

governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate for directing
investigation on the basis of a complaint. The said decision reiterates that
such jurisdiction is not to be exercised mechanically and that the Magistrate
is required to apply judicial mind to the statutory requirements and the
material placed before it. Though the said judgment arose in the context of
the requirements of Sections 154 and 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., its underlying
emphasis on judicial application of mind while directing criminal
investigation is relevant while examining the procedural background of the
present matter under the corresponding provisions of the BNSS.
28. This Court is conscious that at the stage of exercising jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the BNSS, a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a
mini-trial is neither permissible nor warranted. However, the present case is
not one where the petitioners seek adjudication of disputed questions of title
or the genuineness of every document forming part of the underlying
property dispute. The limited question is whether the allegations and the
material available on record disclose sufficient factual foundation to continue
criminal proceedings against these two petitioners.
29. Upon consideration of the entire material, this Court finds that the
prosecution has not been able to demonstrate any specific overt act
attributable to either of the petitioners constituting the offences alleged
against them. There is no material indicating that Petitioner No.1 forged the
signatures of the complainant or his brothers, prepared any fabricated
document or had prior knowledge of any alleged fraudulent act. His role, as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
15 MCRC-31067-2026
alleged, is confined to representing the parties before the Revenue

Authorities and filing an application in the proceedings conducted in the
ordinary course of his profession. Similarly, there is no material indicating
that Petitioner No.2 had any knowledge of the alleged fabrication of the
agreement or that she participated in its preparation or execution. Her alleged
act of issuing stamp paper, by itself, does not constitute the offences alleged
against her.
30. The allegation concerning withdrawal of the revenue appeal cannot
be considered in isolation from the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the
Commissioner, Gwalior Division. The said order records the personal
appearance of the appellants and their statement regarding settlement. The
complainant has not questioned the correctness of the said order before any
competent forum. No material has been placed before this Court to indicate
that the present petitioners forged the signatures in question or manipulated
the proceedings before the Commissioner.
31. In such circumstances, permitting the criminal proceedings to
continue against the petitioners merely on the basis of their respective
professional and vocational activities, without any material indicating prior
knowledge, dishonest intention or intentional participation in the alleged
offences, would amount to subjecting them to an unwarranted criminal
prosecution.
32. This Court is of the considered view that the inherent jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the BNSS is required to be exercised in the present
matter to prevent abuse of the process of law. The allegations against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33357
16 MCRC-31067-2026
petitioners, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the essential

ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 338 and
336(3) of the BNS, so far as the present petitioners are concerned.
Continuation of criminal proceedings against them, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, would serve no useful purpose and would result in
an abuse of the process of the Court.
33. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. FIR No.141/2026 dated
27.06.2026 registered at Police Station University, District Gwalior, for the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 338 and 336(3) of the
BNS and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed
qua the present petitioners only.
34. It is clarified that this order shall not affect the investigation or
proceedings, if any, against the other accused persons. Further, the
observations made herein are confined to the consideration of the case of the
present petitioners and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the allegations against the other accused persons or on the
independent title dispute concerning the subject property.
35. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands
allowed and disposed of.

(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:43:36 PM