Smt Pushpa Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68104
1 MCRC-24910-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
nd
ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24910 of 2017
SMT PUSHPA LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Eshan Datt - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Shukla - Government Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing
Crime No.160/2017 registered at Police Station Malthon, District Sagar, for
the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and all
consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom. During the pendency
of the present petition, the complainant, namely Asharani, passed away, and
the said fact has been duly verified by the State.
2. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was working as Sahayak
Sachiv in Gram Panchayat Samaspur, Janpad Panchayat Malthon, District
Sagar. On 31.08.2017, the Sarpanch/complainant lodged a report alleging
that certain amounts had been withdrawn/transferred from the bank account
of the Gram Panchayat in a fraudulent and dishonest manner. It was alleged
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 17:29:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68104
2 MCRC-24910-2017
that an amount of Rs.1,61,690/- had been withdrawn on 28.06.2017 and

thereafter amounts of Rs.48,000/-, Rs.53,100/- and Rs.59,950/-, total of
Rs.1,61,050/-, were transferred on 04.08.2017 to Pawan Suvidha Kendra.
The allegation was that the petitioner, being Sahayak Sachiv and having been
conferred certain financial powers during the period when Panchayat
Secretaries were on strike, had dishonestly and fraudulently withdrawn the
amount belonging to the Gram Panchayat.
3. The petitioner has pleaded that she has been falsely implicated and that
the amounts referred to in the FIR were not withdrawn for her personal
benefit but were utilized towards payment of bills relating to purchase of
material required for Gram Panchayat works. It is specifically stated that
payments were made against bills raised by M/s Anil Tyre House, Sagar and
Pawan Suvidha Kendra, Bandri, towards purchase of cement, hardware,
electrical articles and other material required for construction of water tanks,
digging of tubewells, installation of submersible pumps, construction of
cattle houses and allied Panchayat works. Copies of the bills and vouchers
have been filed as Annexure-P/2 and photographs of the works have been
filed as Annexure-P/3. The petitioner has contended that the bills and
vouchers were duly verified by the competent Panchayat authorities and bore
the signatures of the Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary. It is therefore
submitted that there was neither deception nor dishonest inducement on the
part of the petitioner and the basic ingredients of Section 420 IPC are absent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute essentially
arose out of the functioning and financial transactions of the Gram Panchayat
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 17:29:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68104
3 MCRC-24910-2017
and that the FIR does not disclose any act of cheating committed by the

petitioner. It is argued that merely alleging withdrawal or transfer of
Panchayat funds, without alleging deception, fraudulent inducement and
delivery of property pursuant thereto, would not constitute an offence under
Section 420 IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the documents filed
along with the petition demonstrate that the amounts were utilized towards
Panchayat works and were supported by bills and vouchers. It is also
submitted that the complainant herself subsequently submitted an affidavit
dated 27.09.2018 addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station
Malthon, District Sagar, stating that the report had been lodged under a
misconception, that the petitioner had not committed the alleged offence and
that she did not wish to prosecute the petitioner any further. The said facts
has been brought on record by I.A. No.14046/2019. It is further submitted
that the complainant Asharani has subsequently died on 09.02.2026, and the
death intimation/shokpatra has been brought on record through I.A.
No.14182/2026.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the
petition and submitted that the allegations in the FIR disclose unauthorized
withdrawal and transfer of Panchayat funds and that the matter involves
public money. It is contended that the correctness of the bills, vouchers and
the explanation furnished by the petitioner are matters which are required to
be examined during investigation/trial and cannot ordinarily be adjudicated
upon in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. It is further submitted
that the subsequent affidavit of the complainant cannot by itself wipe out the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 17:29:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68104
4 MCRC-24910-2017
criminal liability arising from the FIR.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the FIR as
well as the material placed on record. The principal question which arises for
consideration is whether the allegations contained in the FIR, even if taken at
their face value, disclose the essential ingredients of the offence punishable
under Section 420 IPC.
7. Section 420 IPC applies where a person cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any property or to make, alter or
destroy a valuable security. The offence of cheating is defined under Section
415 IPC and requires deception of a person and fraudulent or dishonest
inducement resulting in delivery of property or the doing/omission of an act
causing or likely to cause damage or harm. The existence of dishonest
intention is therefore an essential component of the offence.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and
Others v. State of Bihar and Another, (2000) 4 SCC 168, has held that the
distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating lies
in the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the
transaction. Similarly, in Dalip Kaur and Others v. Jagnar Singh and
Another, (2009) 14 SCC 696, it has been reiterated that the essential
ingredients of cheating must be disclosed from the allegations and that every
act involving a financial transaction does not constitute cheating.
9. In the present case, the FIR essentially alleges that amounts were
withdrawn/transferred from the account of the Gram Panchayat by the
petitioner in a fraudulent manner. However, there is no specific allegation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 17:29:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68104
5 MCRC-24910-2017
showing that the petitioner deceived the complainant or any other person

and, by such deception, dishonestly induced such person to deliver property.
There is also no specific allegation of any fraudulent representation made by
the petitioner for obtaining the alleged amount. The allegation of
unauthorized withdrawal, by itself, cannot automatically be equated with
cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC.
10. On the contrary, the petitioner has placed on record bills and vouchers
as Annexure-P/2 showing the alleged expenditure towards purchase of
material for Gram Panchayat works, along with photographs of the works as
Annexure-P/3. Though this Court would ordinarily not undertake a detailed
appreciation of such documents at the stage of Section 482 CrPC, the same
become relevant when examined along with the basic allegations in the FIR,
particularly when the FIR itself does not disclose the essential element of
deception or dishonest inducement necessary for constituting an offence
under Section 420 IPC.
11. The subsequent conduct of the complainant also assumes significance.
Through the affidavit dated 27.09.2018, facts added on record by I.A.
No.14046/2019, the complainant herself stated that the report had been
lodged under a misconception, that the petitioner had not committed the
alleged offence and that she did not wish to prosecute the petitioner. This
affidavit was executed substantially prior to the present consideration of the
matter and is not merely a subsequent statement made at the stage of final
hearing. The complainant has thereafter expired on 09.02.2026, as reflected
from the documents filed with I.A. No.14182/2026. The death of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 17:29:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68104
6 MCRC-24910-2017
complainant, by itself, would not be a ground to terminate criminal

proceedings; however, the affidavit made by her during her lifetime can
certainly be considered along with the FIR and other material for
determining whether continuation of the prosecution would serve the ends of
justice.
12. It is true that the powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised
to conduct a mini-trial or to appreciate disputed questions of fact. However,
in the present case, interference is not being made merely on the basis of the
petitioner's defence. The fundamental defect is that the allegations contained
in the FIR do not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating under Section
420 IPC. The documents relied upon by the petitioner and the subsequent
affidavit of the complainant only lend further support to the conclusion that
continuation of the prosecution on the allegations as presently disclosed
would not advance the cause of justice.
13. This Court is also conscious of the fact that allegations concerning
public funds ordinarily require cautious consideration and criminal
proceedings involving genuine allegations of misappropriation or fraud
cannot be terminated merely because the complainant subsequently
expresses unwillingness to prosecute. However, in the present case, the
prosecution has been registered only under Section 420 IPC, and the
allegations as contained in the FIR do not disclose the foundational
ingredients of that offence. No material has been pointed out by the State
demonstrating the necessary element of deception and dishonest inducement
attributable to the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 17:29:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68104
7 MCRC-24910-2017
14. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present

case falls within the parameters of interference recognized in the case State
of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the
process of law.
15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR bearing Crime No.160/2017
registered at Police Station Malthon, District Sagar, for the offence
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and all consequential
criminal proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to the present
petitioner Smt. Pushpa Lodhi, are hereby quashed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Prachi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 17:29:15