Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veer Singh Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MP 638
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1 WP.9444.2021
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
WP.9444.2021
(Veer Singh Jadon Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior dated 20.05.2021
Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
Heard through video conferencing.
1. This petition preferred u/Art.226 of the Constitution by a practising lawyer prays for the following reliefs:
(i) That, the order impugned dated 11.09.2019 passed by Respondent no.6 in case no.0214/2017-18/B-121 [Badrilal Vs. Babulal], wherein passed an structure for lodging of F.I.R. may kindly be quashed so also quash the consequential order/letter on 07/8/2018/30.10.2019 (Annexure-P/2) issued by the Respondent no.4 and the order/letter dated 04.11.2019 (Annexure -P/3) issued by the Respondent no.6 and the F.I.R. Crime No.0035/2021 (Annexure -P/4) for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC registered by the Respondent no.7 may also be quashed declaring the same bad in law, in the interest of justice.
(ii) That, the Respondent no.1 be commanded to conduct a fact finding enquiry with regard to preparation of forged and fabricated Affidavit of the petitioner on dated 3.4.2017 which has been verified by the Oath Commissioner/ Respondent no.8 so also conduct fact finding enquiry against the erring persons who are involved in preparation of forged and fabricated orders of Board of Revenue Court, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice.
(iii) That, Cost of the petition be awarded or any other 2 WP.9444.2021 order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioner.
2. The grievance of the petitioner, giving rise to the aforesaid prayer, is that by the impugned order dated 11.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) Naib Tahsildar, Circle-03, Premsar, Tahsil Sheopur, while rejecting an application filed by Shri Badrilal S/o Nathulal Mali praying for execution of the order passed in Revenue Case No.1435/1/2012 dated 01.10.2015 by the Board of Revenue, directed that since the affidavit dated 03.04.2017 filed by the petitioner before the SDO prima facie appears to be false indicating forgery having been committed by the petitioner and as well as the head copyist, an FIR be lodged against the concerned person.
3. The brief facts attending the case reveal that one Badrilal S/o Nathulal Mali was represented by the petitioner before the SDO, Sheopur. The petitioner in his capacity as counsel of said Badrilal filed an affidavit dated 03.04.2017 vide Annexure P-11 inter alia stating on oath that he practises in the court of Board of Revenue and knows Badrilal who informed him that in Revenue Case No.1435/1/2012, the Board of Revenue at Gwalior has passed final order and thus on the authorization and instructions of Badrilal, petitioner herein applied for obtaining certified copy of the said final decision of the Board of Revenue in the copying section on 07.11.2015. The affidavit further disclosed that on obtaining the certified copy of the final order of the Board of Revenue the same was handed over to Shri Badrilal.
3 WP.9444.2021 3.1 When the final order of Board of revenue [whose certified copy was obtained by the petitioner and which was said to be dated 01.10.2015] was placed before the Naib Tahsildar, Circle- 03, Premsar, Tahsil Sheopur, the said authority issued notice and sought reply of the opposite party i.e. Babulal. 3.2 The opposite party filed reply which revealed that the Revenue Case No.1435/1/2012 was not decided on 01.10.2015 finally but the order sheets of the Board of Revenue disclose that the same was pending till 09.03.2017 and further that there was no order of any nature [interlocutory or final] of the Board of Revenue dated 01.10.2015 in the said case. 3.3 The Naib Tahsildar enquired this aspect from the Board of Revenue and was informed from the copying section of the Board of Revenue that no certified copy of the so called order dated 01.10.2015 was issued in Revenue Case No.1435/1/2012. The Naib Tahsildar thereafter came to a prima facie finding that fraud has been played by way of forgery by Badrilal and his counsel [petitioner herein]. As such, the Naib Tahsildar while rejecting the application of Badrilal directed that FIR be lodged against the concerned suspect.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner relying upon "In the matter of : 'K' A Judicial Officer [(2001) 3 SCC 54], A.M. Mathur Vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta And Others [AIR 1990 SC 1737], D. Rama Krishna Vs. Sadhu Narayana And Another [(2012) 3 SCC 202] and Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And 4 WP.9444.2021 Another [(2012) 6 SCC 491]" submits that it is a settled law that whenever a stricture is passed by judicial authority against any person who is not a party before it, then the least requirement of law is to afford a prior opportunity of being heard to that person. It is submitted that in the instant case the petitioner has been found to have committed forgery without having afforded any opportunity of explaining his side of the story and prejudice gets multiplied by registration of FIR.
5. Incidentally, FIR Annexure P-4 bearing Crime No.35/2021 Police Station Dehat Sheopur, District Sheopur (M.P.) dated 19.02.2021 alleging offences punishable u/Ss.420 IPC has been lodged against the petitioner.
6. As such the petitioner has not only prayed for quashing of the order of Naib Tahsildar Annexure P-1 dated 11.09.2019 but also the earlier order of Commissioner (Revenue), Chambal Division, Morena (M.P.) dated 07.08.2018 Annexure P-2, order Annexure P-3 of Naib Tahsildar dated 04.11.2019 and the consequential FIR Annexure P-4.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, having perused the record and considered the arguments of learned counsel for rival parties on the question of admission, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of Naib Tahsildar Annexure P-1 does not contain any stricture against the petitioner. The Naib Tahsildar vide P-1 has stated the bare facts attending the case which include the swearing of an affidavit by the petitioner 5 WP.9444.2021 dated 03.04.2017. After having assessed the factual matrix, the Naib Tahsildar has prima facie found that fraud by way of forgery has taken place and the finger of suspicion is pointed towards the head copyist and the petitioner [the counsel for Shri Badrilal]. 7.1 The judicial authority is well within its powers to express a prima facie view which may ostensibly appear to be adverse in nature against the party not before the judicial authority provided the judicial authority does not go to the extent of maligning or casting aspersion against the said person. The judicial authority should also eschew from passing any stricture which may adversely effect the reputation, life, liberty or dignity of the person not impleaded as party.
7.2 The direction for registration of an FIR by the Naib Tahsildar vide P-1 is not against any particular individual. The direction for lodging of FIR is against the concerned person; therefore, the Naib Tahsildar has left it open to the police authorities to register an FIR if the facts disclose commission of cognizable offence in terms of Sec.154 Cr.P.C. 7.3 Moreso, registration of an FIR per se does not amount to an adverse effect on life, liberty or dignity against the accused but is a mere starting point of investigation to find out as to whether the information of cognizable offence which has led to registration of an FIR is prima facie correct or not and whether the accused should be put to trial or not. Mere registration of an FIR may lead to certain prejudices to the accused but the FIR per se does not 6 WP.9444.2021 conclude that the person/accused has committed the alleged offence. The FIR is a manifestation of the first information received of a cognizable offence which may or may not turn out to be true after collection of evidence during investigation. 7.4 Moreso, Cr.P.C. provides for various remedies to the person-accused in the FIR in shape of provision of bail, provision of invoking inherent powers of this Court u/S.482 Cr.P.C. etc.
8. In view of above discussion, this Court is not impressed by the argument that the impugned order of Naib Tahsildar Annexure P-1 contains any stricture or aspersion against the petitioner. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of In the matter of : 'K' A Judicial Officer, A.M. Mathur Vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta And Others, D. Rama Krishna Vs. Sadhu Narayana And Another and Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner.
9. This Court is conscious of the fact that any comment on the veracity or genuineness of the allegations contained in FIR bearing Crime No.35/2021 Police Station Dehat Sheopur, District Sheopur (M.P.) dated 19.02.2021 would prejudice not only the prosecution but also the petitioner and therefore this Court refrains from making any comment on the legality and validity of the allegations in the FIR on merits.
10. Consequently, this Court declines interference and dismisses the present petition. Since FIR has been lodged and this Court has not gone into the merits of the allegations in the FIR, 7 WP.9444.2021 the petitioner is free to assail the impugned order Annexure P-1 & the FIR as per law for which this order passed today shall not come in his way.
No cost.
(Sheel Nagu) Vacation Judge pd PAWAN Digitally signed by PAWAN DHARKAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF DHARK MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=345b3604d572ed9dd14 AR 92fe82dc3b1eef67eff2cb59f3ac9 7e920ac264de7828, cn=PAWAN DHARKAR Date: 2021.05.24 14:51:04 +05'30'