Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gurlabh Singh vs State & Anr on 26 August, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3673 / 2016
Gurlabh Singh S/o Shri Moman Singh, Chak 6-y, Tehsil & Distt. Sri
Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Sarjeet Kaur @ Gurdeep Kaur W/o Jagraj Singh, 17-a, Tehsil
Anoopgarh, At Present Jodkiya, Tehsil Padampur, Distt. Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DS Thind.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit PP for the State.
For Complainant(s): Mr. Pankaj Gupta.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 26/08/2017
1. The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.202/2016, dated 14.05.2016, lodged at Police Station Anoopgarh for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 166, 167 and 120-B of IPC.
2. The complainant Smt. Sarjeet Kaur was filed a FIR against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 166, 167 and 120-B of IPC. The allegation upon the present accused persons was that an agricultural land measuring about 24 Bighas of Murraba No.31 at stone No.197/19 was allotted in the name of her grandmother (Nani) Smt. Sant Kaur, wife of Sunder Singh into Chak 17 A Tehsil Annopgarh since long back. It was also clarified by the complainant that the only (2 of 6) [CRLMP-3673/2016] daughter of Smt. Sant Kaur i.e the mother of the complainant Smt. Gurnaam Kaur was passed away way back in the year 1962, thus, in the manner, the complainant is only live legal representative alive. The marriage of her mother Gurnaam Kaur was solemnized with one Boga Singh and after the death of the first wife Smt. Gurnaam Kaur. The present petitioners were born out the wedlock between the Boga Singh and Mukund Kaur. That after the death of Gurnaam Kaur, the father of Boga Singh solemnized second marriage with Smt. Mukund Kaur and from their wedlock the present petitioners accused No.1 and 2 alongwith one Moman Singh were borne.
3. The respondents main allegations was that the petitioner was not legal heir of her mother and the mutation entries that got entered on the death of Smt. Sant Kaur was unlawfully entered. The mutation entries was entered on 5.06.2015 and the allegation was that they were illegal and, therefore, the petitioner was responsible for the same. The matter was investigated and the FIR No.202/2016 was lodged. The civil suit between Smt. Sarjeet Kaur and the petitioners was also filed and a decree for cancellation of the mutation entries was ordered on 5.06.2015. The same was prior to filing of the present complaint. The proceedings was also registered under revenue under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and thus, the mutation became a contention in the civil and revenue proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out on the face of it that the FIR is nothing but regarding an allegation of (3 of 6) [CRLMP-3673/2016] illegal mutation entries on the name of the present petitioner.
5. The factual report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor concludes that the family dispute resulted into illegal entries of mutation in favour of the present accused persons.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Rameshwar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 452 and the relevant portion of the judgment is as follows.
"8. From a perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that the disputed mutation entry in relation whereto the FIR was filed was made way back in the year 1990. The succession certificate which has been issued by the petitioner Prithvi Raj, who was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned at the relevant time was issued on 10.7.1990 that is nearly 23 years ago. The certificate has been issued in favour of Smt.Pari Devi and Rameshwar. At that time, there was no objection from the side of the complainant party that Smt.Bhuri Devi being the daughter of Surja Ram was thus having any entitlement of any share in the property in question.
9. The Investigating Officer too has noted in the case diary that the complainant has repeatedly been given notices for the purpose of filing on record any document for showing that Smt.Bhuri Devi was the legal heir of late Surja Ram, but, no such document has been filed till date. Though, there is oral testimony on the record by way of the statements of the legal heirs of Smt.Bhuri Devi who have deposed that Smt.Bhuri Devi was the daughter of Surja Ram but the said testimony (4 of 6) [CRLMP-3673/2016] is not supported by any documentary evidence. The relevant record which has been collected by the Investigating Officer does not show that the deceased Surja Ram was having any legal heirs apart from the petitioner Rameshwar and his wife Smt.Pari Devi. Thus, prima facie the allegation of the complainant that Smt. Bhuri Devi was a legal heir of Surja Ram and was entitled to a share in his property has not been established on record till date.
10. The matter also involves a serious question as to whether a simple mutation claimed to have been entered fraudulently in the land records can be considered to be a forgery of a valuable security. The law is well settled that the mutation entry is nothing but a fiscal entry and does not give rise to any property rights. Reliance in this regard can be had to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1989, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para No.123 of the judgment held as under :-
"123. In this regard, it may also be pertinent to deal with mutation proceedings heavily relied upon by the respondent No.1. Mutation proceedings are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries. "Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value of title. It only enables the person, in whose favour the mutation is entered, to pay the land revenue in question."
11. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that by the execution of mutation entry of Surja Ram's land in the names of the (5 of 6) [CRLMP-3673/2016] petitioners Rameshwar and Ramdev into the revenue record way back in the year 1990 cannot give rise to any offence so as to permit continuance of the investigation of the FIR impugned. Thus, in the view of this Court, permitting continuance of the investigation of the FIR impugned is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.
12. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.483/2012, registered at the Police Station Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh and all other subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are hereby quashed."
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the petitioner was in fact son of the second mother whereas the complainant was the daughter of the first mother and the property in question was inherited from the nani / mother's mother of the present complainant and therefore, the petitioner had no right to get the mutation entities done. On the face of the FIR and the investigation report, the conclusion is that the mutation entries have been wrongly recorded by the illegal act of the petitioner. Admittedly, the civil proceedings and revenue proceedings regarding the allegedly wrong mutation entries are continuing between the parties.
8. Thus, in view of this matter, this Court is of the opinion that by execution of the mutation entries, the petitioner did not commit any offence, which would permit continuance of criminal (6 of 6) [CRLMP-3673/2016] proceedings in the FIR impugned. Thus, in view of this Court, the permitting of continuance of the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law. As a result, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.202/2016, dated 14.05.2016 lodged at Police Station Anoopgarh for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 166, 167 and 120-B of IPC is quashed and set aside.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. ck