Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkishor Puri vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 September, 2019
Author: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
Bench: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.P.S.CHAUHAN
Cr.R.No.1520/2019
Ramkishor Puri
Vs.
State of M.P. and another
Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Udayanand Pandey, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
O R D E R
(04/09/2019) The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 01/03/2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.113/2018 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, Distt. Panna 2 thereby framing the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the applicant who was Patwari of Patwari Halka No.22, Village Badwara, Tah. Devendra Nagar, Distt. Panna. Respondent No.2 who was complainant purchased some part of Khasra No.792 and after partition that part has been assigned as Khasra No.792/2 and Khasra No.792/1 was registered in the name of Bhagwati Devi Talang who was later sold her part to Pramod Kumar Jain vide registered sale deed dated 31/08/2016 and Khasra No.792/1 along with other land situated in Khasra No.788/1 got recorded in the name of Pramod Kumar Jain and land Khasra No.792/2 recorded in the name of complainant. Respondent No.2 applied for the map of land situated in Khasra No.792/2, then the applicant who was posted as Patwari provided a wrong map of Khasra No.792. 3 Taking advantage of that map Pramod Kumar Jain restricted the passage of Khasra No.792/2. The applicant without permission of superior authority forgedly changed the map and provided a wrong map taking advantage of that wrong map Pramod Kumar obstructed the passage to reach on the land situated in Khasra No.792/2 belonging to the complainant/ respondent No.2.
3. Thereafter applicant No.2 applied for correction of map in the Court of Tahsildar. Tahsildar called for explanation from the applicant and found that the applicant has forgedly changed the map without seeking permission from the appropriate authority. Tahsildar passed the order dated 11/9/2017 and observed that the change map did not bear signature of any competent authority.
4. The applicant recorded his statement to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. Learned trial Court, on the basis of statement and 4 documents filed along with the complaint discussed the facts at length and ultimately vide order dated 04/05/2018 dismissed the complaint filed by respondent No.2 against the applicant. Respondent No.2, being aggrieved by that order, filed a criminal revision before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Panna registered as Criminal Revision No.20/2018. Revisional Court vide order dated 7th August, 2018 set aside the order dated 4/5/2018 passed by the Court of JMFC and remanded matter back to the Court of JMFC for considering the matter afresh. Learned trial Court vide order dated 18/09/2018 reconsidered the matter and registered the complaint and issued notice under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. When the applicant appeared before the Court of JMFC, Panna, learned JMFC sent the case to the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panna for trial. Applicant filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging him of the charges. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 01/03/2019 dismissed the 5 application and framed charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC against the applicant.
5. Being aggrieved by that order dated 01/03/2019 the applicant has filed this revision on the ground that the applicant is a Government servant, hence proceeding against him cannot be initiated without sanction of competent authority. The applicant issued map as per the revenue record. There is no demarcation of land in the official record. The applicant did not commit any crime in that respect. No material is available on record which shows that the applicant has made certain illegal trace in the alleged map. No ingredients of any offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 of IPC is made out. Learned trial Court has not perused the evidence properly, therefore, prays to set aside the order dated 01/03/2019 and discharge the applicant of the charges.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the applicant is Patwari appointed by the Collector not 6 by the State Government and can be removed by the Collector. Thus, there is no need of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Record had been kept in possession of the applicant. There is no proper order of any competent authority to change the map, however, in spite of that, the applicant to extend the benefit to Pramod Kumar Jain, caused loss to respondent No.2 changed the map of his own volition without any order of competent authority. There is prima facie ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC. The applicant has filed this revision on wrong ground, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision.
7. Learned Government Advocate has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.2.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with this revisions as well as documents filed along with the complaint. 7
9. It is undisputed that the land bearing Khasra No.792/1 situated at Village Badwara, Tah. Devendra Nagar, Distt. Planna purchased by respondent No.2 and remaining land bearing Khasra No.792/1 had been sold to Pramod Kumar Jain and when there was partition between Khasra No.792/2 and 792/1, the map of that land has been amended accordingly. There was passage in the western side of Khasra No.792/1 which was used by respondent No.2 and on western side the land of Khasra No.791 is situated which is Government land. When the applicant asked for the map of Khasra No.792/2, the applicant provided a map of whole Khasra No.792 and in that map no where demarcation of Khasras No.792/2 and 792/1 has been shown while demarcation has already been executed in the map. However, the applicant for providing benefit to Pramod Kumar Jain deleted the passage situated at western side used by respondent No.2 and just to extend benefit to Pramod Kumar Jain merging the Government land into 8 his land situated in Khasra No.791. When respondent No.2 applied for the correct map in the Court of Tahsildar, objection had been submitted by Pramod Kumar Jain. The Tahsildar called for map from the applicant and when it is submitted by the applicant, the Tahsildar observed that the said map did not bear the signature of any competent authority and categorically vide order dated 11/09/2017 mentioned the fact that it is not correct map. In this way the applicant interpolated the map to extend the benefit to Pramod Kumar Jain and damaged to respondent No.2 by preparing forged map.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that whatever the map the applicant has, he provided copy of that map to respondent No.2. He is not authorised to change the map. This Court is not agreed with this argument. The map kept in possession of the Patwari and the applicant was posted as Patwari. The duty of Patwari/applicant is to execute the order of superior 9 authority. If there was partition of Khasra No.792/2 and 792/1 and there was a passage on the western side of that land situated in Government land of Khasra No.791, the applicant was duty bound to mention the correct demarcation and possession in the map, therefore, prima facie, he cannot be escaped from any act by saying that he is not competent to make any correction in the map. He is the main person after getting the order from the authority proposed to change in the map instead of keeping the map along with him and before providing copy of the map, he has to ensure the current status of the land and if it has not been executed in the map, he is duty bound to inform the competent authority for correcting the map.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and another, (2018) 7 SCC 581 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if a person is not the maker of false 10 document in question, making of document is different than causing it to be made, in that circumstances, offence of forgery cannot be imposed on the person who is not the maker of forged document in question. However, the facts of the present case is different as in the present case the applicant is a village Patwari. There was order of demarcation of Khasra No.792/2 and Khasra No.792/1 from the competent authority. A common passage situated in the western side of previous Khasra No.792 on the adjacent of Khasra No.791 which belongs to the Government land. The applicant kept original map in his possession but not made it correct as per the order of the competent authority and when copy of that map has been asked, however, he did not provide the correct map and provided a previous map by deleting the passage situated at Khasra No.791 and merged that passage in land recorded in the name of Pramod Kumar Jain. There is prima facie ingredients of the offence which 11 appears from the evidence and if there is sufficient material available on record and there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the applicant, the applicant shall not be discharged at that stage under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court has framed charges of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC and under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. found that there is a ground for presuming that the applicant has committed an offence.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent No.2 filed photocopy of map, the Court cannot consider that photocopy at the time of framing of charge. This Court is not satisfied with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. The case of respondent No.2, in complaint, is that when he asked for the copy of map, the applicant provided a copy of map which was interpolated and forged. The competent authority i.e. Tahsildar and other Courts also considered that applicant did not 12 provide the correct updated copy of the map. In this way, the documents produced by the applicant can be considered at that stage of proceeding under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. Admissibility of the documents would be decided at the time of exhibiting the documents in evidence during trial.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajastahan Vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu, AIR 2017 SC 796 by referring the judgment passed in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 in para -26 has categorically considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. while framing the charge. Para-26 reads as under :
"26. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had 13 been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure."
14. On the basis of forgoing discussions, this Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order and discharge the applicant of the charge.
14
15. Accordingly, the revision is devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge ts Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2019.09.06 11:14:26 +05'30'