Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shambhu Lal vs State on 25 July, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2740 / 2013
Bhawani Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Maidem
presently residing at C-39, Amar Nagar, Khedali Fatak, Khatipura,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Dhuliya S/o Nar Ji, B/c Meena, R/o Vanidara (Dunglavani) Tehsil
Pipalkhunt District Pratapgarh.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1238 / 2013
Shambhu Lal S/o Shri Nathuji Garasiya, By caste Bheel, aged
about 58 years, resident of Mundari, Tehsil Anandpuri District
Banswara at present of Girdawar Ghantali, Tehsil Pipalkhunt
District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Dhuliya S/o Narji Meena, by caste Meena, aged 70 years,
resident of Vadi Yadra (Dunglawani) Tehsil & P.S. Pipalkhunt
District Pratapgarh.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Bathi
Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 25/07/2017
1. The petitioners have preferred these misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.242/2012 (2 of 5) [ CRLMP-2740/2013] registered at Police Station Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh for the offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC.
2. A written complaint as filed on 31.07.2012 before the learned Magistrate regarding the ancestral agricultural land situated in Khasra No.213 recorded in favour of one Hemta S/o Bhera Meena. On death of Hemta, the complainant alleged that the petitioners opened the mutation in the name of Narji S/o Hemta Bhil illegally and under the conspiracy. The police registered a FIR on 09.08.2012. The petitioners opened a mutation on the name of Narji S/o Hemta and after that an enquiry was conducted by the Girdawar in respect of the legal heirs who endorsed Sajra to be the legal heirs of Hemta on 28.07.2008 and the same was duly verified by the Sarpanch and in light of endorse of the petitioner attested mutation on 05.09.2008. The petitioners have no role beyond the mutation entries which has been laid down in the precedent law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the total allegation in the FIR on record is of wrongly mutation entries whereas in the precedent law in the case of Rameshwar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 452, whereby this Hon'ble Court has already laid down the law that the mutation entries are fiscal entries and do not create any right in the property hence, no offence was made out. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"8. From a perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that the disputed mutation entry in relation (3 of 5) [ CRLMP-2740/2013] 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 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 (4 of 5) [ CRLMP-2740/2013] 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 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."
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the status report and has opposed the submissions.
(5 of 5) [ CRLMP-2740/2013]
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case along with precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the total allegation on the face of it of making wrong entries in the mutation record which as per the precedent law so cited amounts to fiscal entries and a criminal prosecution for the same amounts to abuse of process of law.
6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the petitions are allowed and the FIR No. 242/2012 dated 09.08.2012 registered at Police Station Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh is quashed and set aside.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. zeeshan/