Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parimal Singh Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1
WP 12301 of 2020
Parimal Singh Solanki vs. State of MP and Ors.
Gwalior, Dated :02/12/2020
Shri Tajuddin Khan, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Raghuvanshi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/
State.
Heard finally through video conferencing.
Case Diary is available.
This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed challenging the FIR registered by Police
Station Manpur, District Sheopur in Crime No.100 /2020 for
offence under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC.
It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant lodged
an FIR to the effect that Patta of survey no.320/04, min area 10/10
bigha was granted in favour of his uncles Harbansh Singh and
Surata Singh under Bhudan Yagya Board Bhudan Dharaka,
however, the Patwaris in a forged manner have executed the sale
deed, whereas the mutation should have been done in the name of
the complainant in whose favour, his uncles Hanbansh Singh and
Surata Singh had executed a ''Will''. Similarly, in Village Saroda,
various Government lands have been sold and accordingly, it was
prayed that an action be taken against Patwaris who are involved in
manipulation of Khasra and also involved in execution of sale
deeds in a forged manner.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2
WP 12301 of 2020
Parimal Singh Solanki vs. State of MP and Ors.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the
petitiner was not posted at the time when the land of the
complainant was wrongly sold, therefore, the registration of FIR
against the petitioner, is bad.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that apart from the land of
the complainant, the revenue record entries of various other lands
were manipulated by the then Patwaris and those lands were
illegally sold. Further, the registration of FIR is the initiation of
investigation. After investigation, if it is found that no allegation
has surfaced against the petitioner, then the investigating agency
shall be well within its rights to file the Closure Report against the
petitioner. Further, an unborn baby cannot be killed simply on the
basis of some of the allegations made in the FIR because the FIR is
not an encyclopedia and in view of the specific allegations that the
forged sale deeds were executed of various other Government lands
by manipulating the revenue records and undisputedly, the
petitioner was posted as Patwari, this Court is of the view that the
information discloses commission of cognizable offence.
Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Kourav vs.
Baisahab and Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 317 has held as
under :-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3
WP 12301 of 2020
Parimal Singh Solanki vs. State of MP and Ors.
''8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power
under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal
proceeding is only when an allegation made in the
FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of
offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the
abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence
produced by the accused in his defence cannot be
looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional
circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal
proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot
embark upon the appreciation of evidence while
considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC
for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from
the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie
case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the
offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot
quash a criminal proceeding.
*******
10. We do not agree with the submissions made on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The conclusion of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings is on the basis of its assessment of the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC being wholly inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Court, while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC.'' Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2020.12.03 17:32:01 +05'30' VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00'