Rakesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 24 March, 2017

[Cites 7, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rakesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 24 March, 2017

Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia

                                      1           M.Cr.C.No.5506 of 2016

          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   BENCH AT GWALIOR
                      SINGLE BENCH
                           PRESENT:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA

                 M.Cr.C. No.5506 OF 2016
                   Rakesh Singh & Anr.
                               -Vs-
                   State of M. P. & Anr.
________________________________________________
     Shri Vikas Sinhal, counsel for the applicants.
     Shri Santosh Tiwari, SDM              (Revenue) Bhind        with
Shri   G.S.   Chauhan,   Public             Prosecutor for         the
respondent/State.
________________________________________________
                         ORDER

(24/03/2017) This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing F.I.R. in crime No. 309/2010 registered by Police Station City Kotwali, Bhind for offences under Sections 420,467,468,471,34 of I.P.C. as well as the criminal proceedings in RT No. 289/2013 pending in the Court of ACJM, Bhind.

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that on 23-12-2010, on the basis of the letter issued by S.D.M., Bhind, the police registered the F.I.R. on the allegation that land bearing survey no. 920 and 921 is recorded as Govt. Land in the revenue records and inspite of the stay order passed by the Collector, Bhind, one Krishna Kumar Babari and others have sold the said land to 28 purchasers and therefore, it was requested that F.I.R. be registered against the sellers and the purchasers. Accordingly, the police registered the crime for offence under Sections 420,467,468,471,34 of I.P.C.

2 M.Cr.C.No.5506 of 2016

After the charge sheet was filed, the Court of IVth A.S.J., Bhind discharged the applicants for offences punishable under Section 467,468 of I.P.C. and sent the case to the Court of Magistrate as according to the A.S.J., no offence triable by Sessions Court was made out. Accordingly, the matter was sent to the Court of Magistrate. The applicants filed an application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that as the case has been sent back by the Sessions Court, therefore, a very little scope of interference by the Magistrate has been left and there is no option but to proceed with the Trial.

Hence, this application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

The case of the applicant is that they had purchased 1350 Sq. Ft. Of land from Laxmi Kumar Babri by registered sale deed dated 29.8.1992, whereas the Collector had passed the Stay order on the sale of land on 15.12.1992 and on 29.8.1992 when the applicants had purchased the land, there was no stay by the Collector. Further the land in question was recorded in the name of Laxmi Kumar Babri and the applicants are the bonafide purchasers. It is further submitted that in fact it is wrong to suggest that the land in question is a Govt. Land, but in fact it is a private land. In support of their contentions, the applicants has relied upon the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 22-1-2015 (Annexure P/15). It is contended by the applicants that originally, the name of Laxmi Kumar was recorded in the revenue records but the Tahsildar on the basis of the report submitted by the Patwari, directed that in place of the name of Laxmi Kumar Babri, the name of State Govt. be recorded in the revenue record. The report of the Patwari was that the land in question was given by the Ruler of Gwalior to the father of Laxmi Kumar Babari on lease on a condition that he would establish a factory over the 3 M.Cr.C.No.5506 of 2016 said land, otherwise, the land would automatically revert back to the State. As the father of Laxmi Kumar Babri didnot establish the factory, therefore in view of the terms of lease, the land automatically stood reverted back to the State.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, Laxmi Kumar filed an appeal before the Court of S.D.O., which was dismissed by order dated 7-2-1996. Being aggrieved by the order of S.D.O., an appeal before the Add. Commmissioner was filed which was allowed and it was held that the land in question is a private land.

The State filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which too has been dismissed by order dated 22-1-2015. Thus, it was submitted that since, the order of the Tahsildar and S.D.O. were set aside by the Add. Commissioner and since, the order of the Additional Commissioner was also affirmed by the Board of Revenue, therefore, now the respondents cannot say that the land in question is a Govt. Land.

This Court by order dated 7-2-2017 directed that the S.D.M., Bhind shall remain present before the Court as inspite of repeated opportunities, no reply was being filed by the respondents. Accordingly, Shri Santosh Tiwari, S.D.M., Bhind appeared before the Court and prayed for an opportunity to file reply. Two weeks time was granted, however, the State did not think it proper to file any reply to the petition and the specific submission made by the Counsel for the applicant that the land in question is a private land. Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court by order dated 28-2-2017 once again directed for the personal appearance of S.D.M., Bhind.

The case was taken up on 9-3-2017 and Shri Santosh Tiwari, S.D.M., Bhind, appeared in person. He admitted that the order dated 22-1-2015 passed by Board of Revenue in case No. 2041-3/2000 is in respect of Survey No. 920 and 921 4 M.Cr.C.No.5506 of 2016 and now the respondents are going to file a writ petition challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Board of Revenue. Thus, it is clear that the respondents have clearly admitted that at present, the land in question i.e., survey no. 920 and 921 is not a Govt. Land.

The allegations against the applicants are that they had purchased a part of Govt. Land forming part of Survey No. 920 and 921. Now, when the respondents themselves have admitted that in the light of the order dated 22-1-2015, passed by Board of Revenue, the land bearing Survey No. 920 and 921 is a private land, then nothing survives in the criminal prosecution of the applicants.

Accordingly, it is held that in view of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 22-1-2015, the land bearing Survey No. 920 and 921 is a private land and not a Govt. land and therefore, the applicants by purchasing a part of Survey No. 920 and 921, did not commit any offence. Further there was no stay order by the Collector as the land was purchased on 29-8-1992 whereas the stay order was passed by the Collector, Bhind on 15-12-1992.

Under the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that even if the entire allegations are accepted in toto, no offence would be made out against the applicants under Sections 420,467,468,471,34 of I.P.C. and therefore, the criminal prosecution of the applicants would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Hence, the further proceedings in criminal case no. RT 289/2013 pending in the Court of ACJM, Bhind, qua the applicants are hereby quashed.

The application succeeds and is hereby allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court