1. This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C is filed for quashment of FIR registered at Crime no 264 of 2018, Police Station - Industrial Area, Ratlam and the orders dated 11/12/2017 and 06/04/2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam with consequential proceedings.

2. The exposition of facts giving rise to present petition is as under :

          A. Shashikala Chopda, the complainant filed a written complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam on 11/12/2017 inter-alia stating that she is owner of agricultural lands bearing Survey no. 175/3 area 0.100 area hectors and Survey no. 175/10-1 area 0.100 hectors adjacent to Rajgarh Naya to Barbar Road. She had installed wire fencing covering her lands in the year 2001 and applied for demarcation of lands before the Tehsildar, Ratlam and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratlam. Accordingly, demarcation of land was conducted on 15/06/2001 by Naib Tehsildar, Revenue Inspector and Patwari. A map of the land showing adjacent to Barbar-Rajgarh road was prepared. Respondent no. 1 Sarita Pipada and respondent no. 2 Jyoti Pipada had purchased the land bearing Survey no. 175/6, which is away from main road, but Sarita, her husband Ashok Pipada and Jyoti and her husband Ramesh Pipada in conspiracy with accused no. 5 Rameshchandra Bairagi, Patwari prepared a forged map showing Survey no. 175/6 situated adjacent to the Barbar - Rajgarh main road. The forged map was prepared to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Accused Sarita Pipada and Jyoti Pipada filed a civil suit registered at RCS no. 41-A of 2017 on the basis of forged map and applied for injunction. The trial Court rejected the application for injunction vide order dated 15/03/2017. The Additional Collector, Ratlam had inquired into the forged map prepared by accused Ramesh Chandra Bairagi. The complainant had submitted a written complaint dated 26/09/2017 to the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam, but no action was taken, therefore, it is prayed that the accused be prosecuted for offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B of the IPC. The application under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C was also filed along with the complaint requesting for forwarding the complaint and directing the SHO of Police Station - Industrial Area, Ratlam to register FIR against the accused. B. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam, vide order dated 11/12/2017 forwarded the complaint to the SHO, Industrial Area, Ratlam with endorsement to the effect that the SHO shall file detail inquiry report at the earliest. The SHO of Police Station - Industrial Area, Ratlam submitted the report that prima-facie, no offence is made out against the accused and the dispute between the parties is pending in appeal before the Commissioner, Ujjain. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, vide order dated 06/04/2018 again forwarded the complaint directing the SHO of Police Station - Industrial Area, Ratlam to conduct an inquiry under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C and submit the report. Learned Judicial Magistrate opined that the complaint contains manipulation of documents and cheating by forgery. In compliance with the directions, the Police Station - Industrial Area, Ratlam registered FIR at Crime no. 264 of 2018 for offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B of the IPC on 10/05/2018.

3. The impunged FIR and the orders of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam are assailed in present petition on following grounds.

          i) Learned Judicial Magistrate did not comply with the rules and orders criminal. The complainant was not examined under section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

          ii) Initially, the Judicial Magistrate directed the SHO of Police Station - Industrial Area, Ratlam to inquire into the complaint. The SHO submitted a report stating that prima-facie, no offence is made out. The Judicial Magistrate committed an error in again forwarding the complaint for investigation instead of rejecting the complaint on the basis of inquiry report. Learned Judicial Magistrate has opined that the complaint contains allegations with regard to manipulation of documents and cheating by forgery without application of judicial mind to the material on record. There was no allegation of manipulation of record. The SDO in order dated 04/01/2017 found that there was no manipulation in the field map.

          iii) The impugned FIR was registered on the basis of the direction dated 03/04/2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam, whereas the order directing investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C was passed on 06/04/2018, therefore, the conduct of Judicial Magistrate and the registration of FIR on the basis of directions dated 03/04/2018 is doubtful.

          iv) The allegations contained in the complaint show that the dispute is civil in nature and the civil suit was pending between the parties at the time of filing of complaint. The trial Court had directed demarcation of the disputed land. The demarcation report reveals correct situation of the land, therefore, the alleged offences are not made out.

          v) The complainant had filed a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order of Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, which was dismissed. No forged map, as alleged, was used by Sarita Pipada or Jyoti Pipada. The complaint was filed merely with intention of blackmailing the petitioners.

4. On these grounds, it is requested that the impugned FIR and the orders of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam be quashed along with all consequential proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are claiming parity with the order dated 15/11/2018 passed in MCRC no. 20098/2018, which stands affirmed by the order dated 13/03/2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) no. 2649/2019. Learned counsel further contends that both the parties are claiming title over the disputed land. There is dispute with regard to situation of the land. The parties are litigating before the Revenue Court for correction of the field map as well as, in the Civil Court for possession over piece of land. The petitioner has not relied on any forged document, rather, submitted the sale deeds executed in their favour by the erstwhile owner. The petitioner Jyoti and Sarita were joint purchaser. The prosecution against Sarita has been quashed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, nothing survives in this prosecution against co-purchaser and co-plaintiff Jyoti.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 referring to the revenue proceedings, submits that the field map prepared by concerned Patwari was dismissed by the Revenue Authority and the original map of the land was upheld in favour of respondent no. 2. Further, the civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn, after the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the petitioner / plaintiff was dismissed. However, learned counsel was at loss to show that the field map alleged to be forged was utilized by the plaintiff.

7. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

8. In case of State of Haryana v. BhajanLal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court laid down the principles for the exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC/528 of BNSS to quash the proceedings, as under :

          "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

          (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

          (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) CrPC except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) CrPC.

          (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

          (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) CrPC.

          (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

          (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

          (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Binod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014(10)SCC 663 considered the law laid down in earlier judgments with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings instituted on criminal complaint and held as under:

          "8. In proceedings instituted on criminal complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly invoked with circumspection, it should be exercised to see that the process of law is not abused or misused. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations madetherein.

          9. In Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736, this Court enumerated the cases where an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside as under: ― (1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complainant does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;

          (2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

          (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

          (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The Supreme Court pointed out that the cases mentioned are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash the proceedings.

10. In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 736, this Court has summarised the principles relating to xercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings as under:- (SCC pp.747-48, para 12) ―

          12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few--Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd (1996) 5 SCC 591; State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of elhi,(1999) 3 SCC 259; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd(2000) 3 SCC 269 [pic]Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v.Mohd. Sharaful Haque( 2005) 1 SCC 122. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:

          (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

          (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

          (iii) The power to quash shall not,however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

          (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed.

          Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

          (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a)purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.‖

11. Referring to the growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases, in paragraphs (13) and (14) of the Indian Oil Corporation's case (supra), it was held as under:-

          13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, [pic]leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., 2000) 2 SCC 636 this Court observed: (SCC p.643, para 8) ―

          8. ... It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

          14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law.

          One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb nnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.

          10. The material on record is perused in the light of aforestated prepositions of law.

          11. The complaint and the material on record clearly show that there is dispute with regard to situation of the land in dispute. Both the parties are litigating before the Revenue Authority regarding situation of the land dispute assailing the field map. The order dated 14/07/2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Ratlam in Case no. 2/B/121/2016-17 was relied by the complainant to prima-facie show that the field map prepared by Patwari, Ramesh Bairagi was found to be incorrect in view of Section 73 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and a show-cause notice was issued to Patwari, Ramesh Bairagi. The order dated 14/07/2017 was assailed before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain in Case no. 93/Appeal/2017-18. The Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, vide order dated 10/03/2021, rejected the appeal and affirmed the order dated 14/07/2017. As informed, the appeal against the order of Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain is pending before the Court of Revenue.

          12. It is an admitted fact that Sarita Pipada and Jyoti Pipada had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against Shashikala W/o Dalpatsingh Chopada registered at RCS no. 41-A/ 2017 on the basis of sale deed executed in their favour. The complainant/ respondent was at a loss to show that the alleged fabricated map was relied on by the plaintiff / petitioners Sarita Pipada and Jyoti Pipada to substantiate their claim in the civil suit. Thus, the allegations contained in the complaint were necessarily related to a civil dispute relating to situation of the disputed land. The parties were litigating before the Revenue Court and the Civil Court. The validity and the correctness of the field map is yet to be finalized. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, considering these aspects of the matter, vide order dated 15/11/2018 passed in MCRC no. 20098 of 2018, passed the following order on the petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C filed by co-accused Sarita Pipada.

          "11. Having heard the parties at length and having regard to the documents filed by them, two specific queries were put before Respondent No.2. First: what is the evidence that any map is forged or fabricated or obtained by the petitioner? and Second: where the alleged forged or fabricated map was used by the petitioner? but these queries are not replied at all. I myself tried to find out any evidence to connect the petitioner to the allegations leveled against him but in vain, therefore, I have no hesitation to say that the claim of Respondent No.2 is based on surmises and conjunctures.

          12. Besides, in compliance of the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the matter is inquired by the police and nothing was found against the petitioner. Now, sending it back merely to complete a technicality of registering FIR and to submit report would be of no avail or will be a futile practice with nothing to achieve. Further, no explanation is given by the prosecution regarding the fact that without passing any order, the matter was resent to the police to register FIR and to investigate the same, which certainly creates doubts regarding bonafide of Respondent No.2.

          13. I am not convince with the submission of the learned senior counsel that it would not be appropriate to abort the proceedings at initial stage. When everything available in the quiver is used and produced by Respondent No.2 and the same is not found enough to constitute any offence charged by him, then it would not be appropriate to drag the proceedings to reach on a predetermined conclusion rather it is more appropriate to drop the proceedings at this very stage to avoid the abuse of process of law.

          14. At the cost of repetition, it would be apposite to observe that the basic rather the only dispute between the parties is to the location of their respective land situated in the same vicinity. Their rival claims are based on several documents. The only solution to the dispute is to get the land demarcated by the competent authority and the petitioner has already resorted that solution by filing civil suit. The civil Court has already issued commission for this purpose

          18. In view of the aforesaid, other technical grounds taken by the petitioner such as procedure prescribed under Section 202 and 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has not been followed or while passing the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate has not exercised its powers under Section 156(3) judiciously or properly are need not to be addressed.

          19. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, in my opinion, the entire evidence produced by Respondent No. 2 is not enough to constitute any offence against the petitioner. There is absolute absence of element of cheating or forgery allegedly committed by the petitioner and in nonexistence of any constituent of such offences, proceeding further with the FIR is not justifiable.

          Therefore, to prevent abuse of process of law, the petition is hereby allowed and the FIR No. 264/2018 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam qua the petitioner is hereby quashed.

13. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 15/11/2018 passed in MCRC no. 20098 of 2018 has been affirmed by the order dated 13/03/2023 passed in SLA (Cri) no. 2649 of 2019 by the Supreme Court of India. The allegations against the petitioners are identical in nature.

14. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 11/12/2017 and 06/04/2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam suffers from manifest impropriety and non-application of judicial mind. Further, the FIR at Crime no 264 of 2018 registered at Police Station - Industrial Area, Ratlam in compliance with the directions dated 03/04/2018 under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C relates to a matter, which is civil in nature. The impugned orders dated 11/12/2017 and 06/04/2018, as also the consequently FIR is abuse of process of Court, therefore, inherent jurisdiction contained under section 482 of the Cr.P.C is invoked for the ends of justice.

15. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 11/12/2017 and 06/04/2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam and the FIR registered at Crime no 264 of 2018, Police Station - Industrial Area, Ratlam are hereby quashed qua petitioners Sarita Pipada, Jyoti Pipada and Ashok Pipaka.

C.C as per rules.