Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Kumar Tiwari vs Mudrika Prasad on 20 July, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J
M.Cr.C.No.4827/2008
Surendra Kumar Tiwari
Vs.
Mudrika Prasad & Another
=================
Shri Prakash Upadhyaya & Shri Hitendra Golani, learned counsel
for the applicant.
None for the respondent No.1, though served.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned G.A. for the respondent
No.2/State.
==================================
ORDER
Reserved on 19/07/2018 Passed on 20/07/2018 This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 31/07/04 passed by Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Mauganj, District Rewa, whereby learned JMFC took cognizance against the applicant and co-accused R.K. Yadav and Smt. Gaindua for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 218, 468, 471 of the IPC on the complaint of respondent No.1 Mudrika Prasad.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Mudrika Prasad filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mauganj, District Rewa averring that the land bearing survey No.292/01 area 2.33 hectare situated at village Raura, Tehsil Mauganj, District Rewa was in the joint ownership of his father Sukhram and his uncle Ramdulare, who died issueless. His uncle Ramdulare through a 2 registered gift deed dated 07/01/1972 donated his share of that land to the complainant and his brother and since then the complainant and his brother are in the ownership and possession of the said land. Applicant, who was the Reader of the then Tehsildar, Tehsil Mauganj, District Rewa prepared forged unregistered sale deed dated 09/02/1983 in favour of his mother co-accused Smt. Gaindua and on the basis of said deed got the said land mutated in the name of his mother Smt. Gaindua. It is further alleged that the applicant being reader of Tehsildar by preparing forged order-sheet of Revenue Case No.142-A/06/1998-99 prepared a forged mutation order in the name of the then Tehsildar Mauganj, District Rewa and got the said land mutated in the name of his mother co-accused Gaindua. So the cognizance be taken against the applicant and other co-accused persons namely R.K. Yadav and Smt. Gaindua for the offence punishable under Section 166, 167, 169, 465, 466, 467, 471, 294, 427, 120-B & 506 of the IPC. On that learned JMFC recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and his witness Samula Baksh under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments passed the impugned order and observing that from the complaint prima facie offence under Section 420, 218, 468, 471 of the IPC is made out against the applicant and co- accused R.K. Yadav & Smt. Gaindua registered the complaint and also issued bailable warrant to secure their presence. Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant preferred this petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged dispute is civil in nature and the complainant filed the complaint in order to pressurize the applicant to settle the civil dispute. Even otherwise the alleged offence is said to have been committed in a course of judicial proceeding, for which adequate remedy of appeal and revision is provided under the M.P. Land Revenue Code. However, despite that the complainant malafidely made a false allegation in order 3 to pressurize the applicant to leave their valid claim over the disputed property. The evidence produced by the applicant is not sufficient to take cognizance of the offence against the applicant. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
At this stage only averment of the complaint and the statement of the respondent No.1/complainant should be seen. In the complaint it is mentioned that the applicant prepared forged unregistered sale deed and also prepared forged order-sheet of Revenue Case No.142-A/06/1998-
99. He also prepared a forged mutation order in the name of the then Tehsildar Mauganj, District Rewa and on that basis he got disputed land mutated in the revenue record in the name of his mother co-accused Smt. Gaindua and preparation of forged document is a criminal offence. Only on the ground that Respondent No.1 has a right to file appeal/revision against wrong mutation order the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed where act of applicant contain ingredients of criminal offence.
However, it also appears from the record that the respondent No.1 did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his allegations. Neither he produced any revenue entry to show that in whose name earlier the said land was recorded and when was the name of co-accused Smt. Gaindua recorded on said land, nor did he produce any copy of alleged mutation order passed in Revenue Case No.142- A/06/1998-99. Complainant/respondent no.1 did not even call the record of Revenue Case No.142-A/06/1998-99 to show that applicant filed any unregistered sale deed in the case to get mutation order in the name of his mother co-accused Gaindua. Learned trial Court without conducting proper enquiry took cognizance against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 218, 468, 471 of the IPC.
4Hence the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside without commenting on merits and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction that the learned trial Court will give an opportunity to respondent No.1 to produce further evidence and thereafter shall pass a reasoned order.
Respondent No.1 is directed to appear before trial Court on 27/08/2018. Office is also directed to send the record along with the order of this Court to trial Court.
With the aforesaid observation petition stands disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) JUDGE as/ Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2018.07.23 10:59:14 +05'30'