Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhirendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 April, 2023
Author: Rajendra Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Verma
1
M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
M.Cr.C. NO. 58759 OF 2022
BETWEEN :-
DHIRENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI
GAJRAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT - 53
YEARS, OCCUPATION - JOINT
COLLECTOR, DISTRICT - SATNA,
PERMANENT R/O 954, SANJEVENI
NAGAR, JABALPUR (M.P.)
....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHASHANK SHEKHAR - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
SHRI VARUN TANKHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION
PRITHVIPUR, DISTRICT NIWARI
(M.P.)
....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI C.M. TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 12/04/2023
Pronounced on : 26/04/2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Revision having been heard and reserved for order, coming on
for pronouncement this day, Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
pronounced the following :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED
ANSARI
Signing time: 4/27/2023
4:47:39 PM
2
M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022
ORDER
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C') has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the FIR as well as the charge sheet in pursuant to Crime No.448/2017 lodged at the Police Station Prithvipur, District Tikamgarh (Now in District Niwari) for the offences registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 477-A and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') & Sections 3(2)(v) and 3 (1)(iv) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'SC/ST Act'). However the petitioner in the petition memo has wrongly mentioned the charges of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act which are not leveled against the petitioner as per the charge sheet.
2. According to case, on 13/12/2016, the complainant Munna Ahirwar along with the other complainant filed a written complaint before the S.P District Tikamgarh against the 17 persons including the present petitioner who was posted as Tehsildar, Tehsil Prithvipur District Tikamgarh at the relevant point of time. It is alleged by the complainant that the present petitioner while posted at the post of Tehsildar in connivance with other accused had wrongly mutated the land bearing Survey Nos.2396, 2399, 2410, 2411 and 2412 total admeasuring area 2.900 hectare of Village Khistone Tehsil Prithvipur District Tikamgarh. The S.P Tikamgarh forwarded the complaint to SDOP Prithvipur to conduct the inquiry and in response thereof, the SDOP Prithvipur prepared the inquiry report against the petitioner, however, he recommended to obtain the opinion Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 3 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022 from the District Prosecution Officer. Thereafter considering the opinion of the District Prosecution Officer, the police registered the above mentioned FIR against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while functioning as Tehsildar was acting as a quasi-judicial body and therefore he is liable to be protected under Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act 1985. The counsel submits that the petitioner had followed the due procedure of law while mutating the land in question, however, there might be some lapse on the part of his subordinates to produce necessary revenue records and facts before the petitioner. According to FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he did not take care of the order passed by the Collector District Tikamgarh in year 1986 whereby the name of complainant was directed to be recorded in the revenue record of disputed land but while mutating the said land the petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the Collector in year 1986 and moreover the then Patwari failed to make relevant entries thereof in revenue record. Therefore, there was no lapse on the part of the petitioner. The purchasers did not come before the petitioner with clean hands and bona-fide intention. They concealed significant fact regarding cancellation of the previous mutation by the Collector in the year 1986. The petitioner passed the mutation order after going through the Khasra Records wherein the entry regarding the Collector's order passed in year 1986 was not recorded. During the mutation proceedings, the petitioner published the advertisement dated 27/05/2006 inviting objections upon the mutation of disputed land upon which no objection was taken by any person. During inquiry, the statement of the then (1985-86) Patwari Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 4 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022 Kanhiyyalal was recorded in which he clearly stated that inadvertently he did not record the entry regarding the cancellation of the mutation by the Collector in the year 1986. The SDOP Prithvipur vide its inquiry report recommended for the closure of the inquiry in the present crime number, so far it relates to the present petitioner. The Collector Tikamgarh vide letter dated 25/09/2018 to the S.P District Tikamgarh recommended to drop the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner. Further, SDOP Prithvipur in his letter dated 28/05/2019, has recommended for the closure of the case against the petitioner stating that the civil suit amongst the co-accused and the complainants is pending before the Civil Court. The SDOP Prithvipur did not find any evidence to prosecute the petitioner in the present case. As per the circular dated 25/03/2021 of the Revenue Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the revenue officers while exercising the quasi judicial powers under the M.P Land Revenue Code are protected from criminal proceedings under the Judges Protection Act 1985. The aggrieved party could have very well challenged the order passed by the petitioner if there was any irregularity/illegality was found but at any eventuality the petitioner could not be fastened with the criminal liability. The counsel submits that the prosecution had also not taken prior sanction before prosecuting the petitioner under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and on this sole ground, the FIR deserves to be quashed. There is also huge delay of 11 years in lodging the FIR.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the submission advanced by the petitioner's counsel submitting that the petitioner in connivance with the other accused mutated the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 5 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022 disputed land which could not be legally done as per the relevant provisions of the M.P Land Revenue Code. The petitioner intentionally overlooked the order passed by the superior authority i.e. the Collector District Tikamgarh. Since prima-facie it shows that the petitioner deliberately committed wrong, therefore, he cannot be benefited of the provisions of the Judges Protection Act 1989. There is sufficient material to show that the petitioner was involved in the alleged conspiracy and therefore no need to require prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C, however, it can also be taken at any stage of the trial. The State submits that no interference of this Court is required in the present case.
5. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record.
6. On perusal of the documents annexed with the present petition, it appears that the disputed land was allotted to the complainant Munna Ahirwar and Summa Ahirwar on lease in year 1968-69. In year 1985, the complainant and Summa Ahirwar sold disputed land to co-accused persons, who got it mutated in their favour which could not be done under the law. As the said fact came to notice of the Collector Tikamgarh, he took the cognizance in suo-moto revision in which vide order dated 24/03/1986, the Collector cancelled the said mutation and directed to record the disputed land in the name of the complainant and Summa Ahirwar. The allegation against the present petitioner is that in the year 2006 the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused persons including the then Patwari Pradeep Khare committed forgery in the revenue records and mutated the land in favour of the other co-accused persons. The specific allegations against the present petitioner are that without going through the due process of law, the petitioner passed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 6 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022 mutation order. Subsequently, Summa Ahirwar died and his heirs filed the complaint against the petitioner and other co-accused persons along with Munna Ahirwar before the S.P District Tikamgarh. Upon the said complaint, SDOP Prithvipur conducted the enquiry and found incriminating things against the present petitioner towards his involvement in the present crime with other co-accused persons.
7. While arguing the petition, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner significantly raised two legal grounds, which are, the prosecution failed to obtain prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C being the petitioner the public servant and the petitioner is liable to be protected under Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act 1985.
8. As far as the first ground relating to the applicability of Section 197 of Cr.P.C is concerned, on careful reading of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., it appears that the intention of lawmakers to incorporate the Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is to protect public servant from being unnecessarily harassed. The Section is restricted for prosecution of government servant for the act while discharging their official duties. For consideration of the present petition, the Section 197 of the Cr.P.C is being quoted as under :-
"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.-(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction Ins. by Act 1 pf 2014. sec. 58 and Sch., Part IV (w.e.f. 16-01- 2014, vide S.O. 119 (E), dated 16th January, 2014) [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013]-Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 7 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:
Ins. by Act 63 of 1980, sec. 3(b) (w.r.e.f. 23-09-1980) [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression"
State Government" occurring therein, the expression"
Central Government" were substituted.]"
9. In the case of Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (1973) 2 SCC 701 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"2...........While the law is well settled the difficulty really arises in applying the law to the facts of any particular case. The intention behind the section is to prevent public servants from being unnecessarily harassed. The section is not restricted only to cases of anything purported to be done in good faith, for a person who ostensibly acts in execution of his duty still purports so to act, although he may have a dishonest intention. Nor is it confined to cases where the act, which constitutes the offence, is the official duty of the official concerned. Such an interpretation would involve a contradiction in terms, because an offence can never be an official duty. The offence should have been committed when an act is done in the execution of duty or when an act purports to be done in the execution of duty. The test appears to be not that the offence is capable of being committed only, by public servant and not anyone else, but that it is committed by a public servant in an act done or purporting to be done in the execution of duty. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 8 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022 section cannot be confined to only such acts as are done by a public servant directly in pursuance of his public office, though in excess of the duty or under a mistaken belief as to the existence of such duty,. Nor need the act constituting the, offence be so inseparably connected with the official duty as to form part and parcel of the same transaction. What is necessary is that the offence must be in respect of an act done or purported to be done in the discharge of an official duty. It does not apply to acts done purely in a private capacity by a public servant. Expressions such as the "capacity in which the act is performed", "Cloak of office" and "professed exercise of office"
may not always be appropriate to describe or delimit the scope of the section. An act merely because it was done negligently does not cease to be one done or purporting to be done in execution of a duty."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bakhshish Singh Brar Vs. Gurmej Kaur and another reported in (1987) 4 SCC 663 has held as under :-
"6.........It is necessary to protect the public servants in the discharge of their duties. They must be made immune from being harassed in criminal proceedings and prosecution, that is the rationale behind Section. 196 and 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But it is equally important that rights of the citizens should be protected and no excesses should be permitted. "Encounter death" has become too common. In the facts and circumstances of each case protection of public officers and public servants functioning in discharge of official duties and protection of private citizens have to be balanced by finding out as to to what extent and now far is a public servant working in discharge of his duties or purported discharge of his duties, and whether the public servant has exceeded his limit."Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 9 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022
11. Further, in another case Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007(1) SCC 1 the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held as under:-
"20. The principle of immunity protects all acts which the public servant has to perform in the exercise of the functions of the Government. The purpose for which they are performed protects these acts from criminal prosecution. However, there is an exception. Where a criminal act is performed under the colour of authority but which in reality is for the public servant's own pleasure or benefit then such acts shall not be protected under the doctrine of State immunity."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh and Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"74......................Public servants are treated as a special class of persons enjoying the said protection so that they can perform their duties without fear and favour and without threats of malicious prosecution. However, the said protection against malicious prosecution which was extended in public interest cannot become a shield to protect corrupt officials. These provisions being exceptions to the equality provision of Article 14 are analogous to provisions of protective discrimination and these protections must be construed very narrowly. These procedural provisions relating to sanction must be construed in such a manner as to advance the causes of honesty and justice and good governance as opposed to escalation of corruption."
13. Upon careful reading of the above cited judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court it clearly appears that Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is to protect Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 10 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022 the public servant from being harassed by the criminal prosecution for the act while discharging their official duties. Once any act or omission has been found to be committed while discharging his official duties, it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. However, once any deliberate act or omission found to have been committed by any public servant in the discharge of their duties to that extent the scope of Section 197 of Cr.P.C would be narrow and restricted. The deliberate act or omission of the public servant could not be protected under the guise of sanction. The sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C cannot become a seal to protect the corrupt public servant.
14. In the present case, undisputedly the petitioner is public servant and he said to have been committed alleged offence while discharging his official duties. Upon examination the nature of duties under which the offence was committed, It appears that the allegations against the present petitioner is that he committed the forgery in connivance with other co- accused and passed the mutation order and thereafter the petitioner is being prosecuted under Section sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 477-A and 120-B of I.P.C & Sections 3(2)(v) and 3 (1)(iv) of SC/ST Act. In various cases viz. Inspector of Police and Another Vs. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and Another reported in (2015) 13 SCC 87, Sambhoo Nath Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1997) 5 SCC 326 and Rajib Ranjan and others Vs. R. Vijaykumar reported in (2015) 1 SCC 513 the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized the principle saying that "even while discharging his official duties, if a public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy or indulges in criminal misconduct, such misdemeanor on his part is not to be treated as an act in discharge of his Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 11 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022 official duties and, therefore, provisions of Section 197 of the Code will not be attracted. The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. Their official duty is not to fabricate records or permit evasion of payment of duty and cause loss to the Revenue. The question of grant of sanction can be raised at any stage of the trial."
15. From reading of the above, it is found that if the allegation against the public servant is for the offence of cheating, fabrication, misappropriation of record and also criminal conspiracy are leveled then there is no need of sanction at earlier stage, it could be taken up at the any stage of trial. The accused who is a public servant can also raise the said ground at any stage of the trial. The correct view would be that if it is found that the proceedings are vitiated in the absence of the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C then Court may direct the authority to take sanction and then proceed instead of quashing the entire proceedings. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that if the prosecution could not get sanction at the stage of enquiry then it does not vitiate the whole proceedings.
16. As far as plea of protection provided under Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act 1985 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that being Tehsildar the petitioner is entitled to get the said protection as the wrong said to have been committed while discharging the official duties. The relevant provision is also quoted herein under:
"Section 3 in The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 12 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022
3. Additional protection to Judges.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge."
17. The coordinate Bench of this High Court has dealt with the similar issues in Cr.R No. 2017/2016 (S.K.Jamra and other Vs Rajaram and others) order dated 15/03/2019 wherein it has been held by the coordinate Bench that the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar is entitled to get the protection of Section 3 of Judges Protection Act 1985 while exercising the powers under the M.P. Land Revenue Code including the mutation proceedings. It has been further held by the Court that Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar cannot be prosecuted for criminal proceedings for passing any order which was passed by them on the report of their subordinate viz R.I/Patwari. The relevant paragraphs are also quoted herein under :-
"As the counsel for the applicant P.S. Rugar took the defence of Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act, therefore, this Court has to decide this issue first. In this regard, in the case of Balram & Anr. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Yadav & Anr. reported in 2001(2) MPHCT 330, this High Court has held that under the MPLRC while Naib Tehsildar was exercising his judicial power for passing the order of mutation he was empowered to give a definite judgment in a legal proceeding and he Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 13 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022 is entitled to get protection under Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act."
In another judgment passed by this Court in the case of Omprakash Vs. Surjan Singh reported in 2004 RN 31, it was held by this Court that Tehsildar passing any order under the MPLRC Acts as Revenue Court, thereof he is protected under Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act.
In the case of S.S. Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007 (5) MPHT 138, this Court by reiterating the case of Balram & Ans. (Supra) and has held as under:-
"5. On perusal of the Para 4 of the complaint dated 11th March, 1999 filed by the respondent No.2, it is alleged that her signatures were forged by co-accused Shyam Swaroop and Kamlesh and not by the petitioner. In view of this fact, the observation of the learned Judge at page 2 of the impugned order, that because the signatures were forged, it cannot be considered an official work of public servant appears erroneous with regard to the petitioner. A bare allegation against the petitioner as per the complaint is that he was involved in the conspiracy of the aforesaid co-accused. On perusal of the order dated 2nd September, 1996, it appears that the papers with regard to the admitted fact of the partition by all the parties including the respondent No.2, were placed before him by the Revenue Inspector and on the report of Revenue Inspector and on such papers petitioner passed the order. As observed herein- above, the forged papers were not prepared by him. In view of these facts passing an order by a competent officer under the provisions of the Code primafacily cannot be accepted that he was also involved in the conspiracy. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a public servant not removable from his office save by or with sanction of the Government. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid act of the petitioner is Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 14 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022 having a direct nexus with the official duty of the petitioner/public servant in the capacity of such public servant. Thus, it appears that the alleged act was performed by him in the capacity of such public servant, sanction under Section 197 as required from the competent Govt. before taking cognizance against him. "
11. From careful reading of Section 3 of Judges Protection Act as well as the mandates of this High Court, it is clear that the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar is entitled to get the protection of Section 3 of the Act, 1985 while exercising the power of MPLRC including mutation proceedings. It is also found that the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar cannot be prosecuted for Criminal proceedings for passing any order which was passed by him on the report of Sub-ordinate person like R.I./Patwari................(emphasis supplied)
18. On the case at hand, undisputedly the petitioner was discharging his duties as Tehsildar at the relevant point of time. The document annexed with the petition indicates that the petitioner passed the mutation order upon the report submitted by the Patwari. Prima-facie there is sufficient material on record to show that the due process of law has been followed by the petitioner. The advertisement in pursuant to the mutation application of the disputed land has also been published by the petitioner upon which no objection was made by any person. Under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, there is provision to file an appeal against the order passed by the Tehsildar if any party is being aggrieved by the said order.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 15 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022The statement of witnesses which are Kanhaiyalal and Jairam Banskar were recorded by the Police indicates that entry regarding cancellation of the earlier mutation order passed by the Collector Tikamgarh in the year 1986 was not updated in the revenue record which ought to have been done by the then Patwari. The inquiry report preferred by the SDOP Prithvipur also recommends for the closure of the criminal prosecution as far as relating to the present petitioner. Therefore, prima-facie there is sufficient material which indicates that the petitioner has followed the due procedure of law while passing the mutation order of the disputed land however same might have been wrong due to non perusal of the updated revenue records. It would not be justifiable to say that the petitioner was involved with the other co-accused persons. The petitioner acted upon his official capacities upon which the petitioner should be provided benefit under Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act 1985. The petitioner can only be prosecuted in spirit of sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act 1985 as the case may be. It is clear that the petitioner was working as a Executive Magistrate in discharge of his official duty. Therefore, as per Section 3 of Act 1985 no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who acted as a Judge and the petitioner shall be protected under Section 3 of Act, 1985. Apart from the above, the civil suit is also pending regarding the disputed land amongst the complainant and the co-accused of the petitioner.
19. As per the material available on record, it has been established that the petitioner was discharging his official duties and was not part of any conspiracy resulting into forgery or any other offence as stated in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM 16 M.Cr.C. No.58759 of 2022 FIR. In the case of State of Haryana Vs Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or the evidence collected in support of the same does not disclose the commission of any offence, the High Court should exercise its inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the said FIR/Complaint.
20. In view of the said discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that prima-facie petitioner was not indulged in any offence as stated in the FIR or in charge sheet produced before the Trial Court. Therefore the FIR/charge sheet deserves to be quashed.
21. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR bearing Crime No.448/2017 lodged at Police Station Prithvipur District Tikamgarh (Now in Niwari) registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 477-A and 120-B of IPC & Sections 3(2)(v) and 3 (1)(iv) of SC/ST Act is hereby quashed along with charge sheet produced in pursuant of the said crime number so far it relates to present petitioner.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE Kafeel Signature Not Verified Signed by: KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Signing time: 4/27/2023 4:47:39 PM