Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Lata Urvasha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 July, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1921 of 2024
• Smt. Lata Urvasha W/o Yugal Kishore Urvasha, Aged About
50 Years, Presently working as Deputy Collector, Durg,
District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer,
Police Station Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
2. Naveen Dewangan S/o Late Ram Manohar Dewangan,
Aged About 47 Years, R/o Amanaka, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate. For State: Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23-07-2024
1. Heard Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State.
2. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following prayer(s):
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the impugned FIR bearing crime no. 86/2024 -2- registered at Police Station, Jarhagaon, District Mungeli for the offence punishable under Setction 420, 467, 468, 471, 193 of IPC against the present petitioner, in the interest of justice."
3. The facts as pleaded in the petition are that, the respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC, Mungeli, alleging therein that the land bearing khasra No.321/4 admeasuring area 0.75 acre (0.303 hectare) situated at Village Barela, P.H.No. 37/25, Block Mungeli, Tahsil & District-Mungeli was recorded in the name of Ram Manohar Dewangan, the father of complainant/ respondent no. 2. The father of complainant namely Ram Manohar Dewangan died on 07.09.2008 leaving behind him the complainant Naveen Dewangan, Ravindra Dewangan, Madhu Dewangan, Indu Dewangan and Subhadra Dewangan. It is further case of complainant that after death of Ram Manohar Dewangan, the accused Narayan filed an application for mutation of land bearing khasra no. 321/4 by personating himself as son of Ram Manohar Dewangan.
On the basis of said application, the present petitioner who was the then posted as Naib Tahsildar, Jarhagaon has proceeded for mutation and during mutation proceeding, one accused namely Kamal Patel examined himself as -3- witness and stated that the said Narayan is the son of Ram Manohar Dewangan. On the basis of said forged and fabricated statement, the subject land was ordered to be recorded in the name of accused Narayan and after mutation of subject land, the said Narayan has sold out the subject land in favour of accused Mintu Arora and thereafter, the accused Mintu Arora has sold out the subject land in favour of accused Jawahar Lal Sahu, Gitesh Kumar Sahu, Smt. Hasina Begum, Mukesh Sahu, Smt. Janki Banjare, Praveen Raj Gyanik and Mukesh Pandey.
After knowledge of above, the complainant made complaint before the Police Station, Jarhagaon on 05.08.2012 and the accused persons have given assurances to the complainant to provide the consideration amount towards the subject land and also given a cheque bearing cheque no. 444024 of Bank of Karnataka Branch Bilaspur and executed an agreement in respect of withdrawal of complaint made by the complainant and pursuant to the agreement, the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid by accused Mintu Arora to the complainant out of total compromise amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-, but rest consideration amount was not provided to the complainant and the check was taken back by the accused persons. The complainant/ respondent no. 2 made complaint before the -4- Police Station, Jarhagaon, but no action was taken by the police authorities therefore he made complaint before the Superintendent of Police on 22.07.2019, then also no action was taken, therefore he filed application U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of offence U/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 193 of IPC against the accused persons including present petitioner. On the basis of above complaint/ application, the JMFC, Mungeli has passed the order on 19.02.2024, whereby directed the Police Station, Jarhagaon for registration of offence U/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 193 of IPC against the accused persons including present applicant. A copy of order dated 19.02.2024 is annexed with the petition as ANNEXURE P/2.
On the basis of aforesaid order passed by the learned JMFC, Mungeli, the Station House Officer, Police Station Jarhagaon has registered the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 193 of IPC on 02.04.2024 against the accused persons including present petitioner. It is contended that at the relevant point of time, the present petitioner was working as Naib Tahsildar, Jarhagaon and she has passed order for mutation after initiating due process of law and on the basis of report submitted by the Patwari and the petitioner was not personally known about the legal heirs of deceased Ram Manohar Dewangan. The -5- petitioner has acted as revenue officer within the meaning of Section 11 and 31 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and therefore her act deemed to be an act of revenue court, thus the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was Naib Tahsildar and acted as revenue officer within the meaning of Section 11 and 21 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, therefore, her act deemed to be an act of revenue court, thus the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence alleged. There is no role of the petitioner as alleged against her. He has further argued that as per the enquiry report submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Jarhagaon, the complainant has already received Rs.20,00,000/- from Mintu Arora and rest amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is agreed to be paid by Mintu Arora after providing signature of Ravindra Dewangan (brother of complainant) in agreement, as the said Ravindra Dewangan is detained in Central Jail. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the matter is under investigation and the FIR has been registered on the basis of the order passed by the learned -6- JMFC, Mungeli. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 192 held in para 23 held as under:-
"23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted"
during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;-7-
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;"
8. Revering to the facts of the present case, from perusal of the FIR it appears that the allegations requires investigation by the police. Further, during course of the argument learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail. Taking into consideration the view taken in the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the documents filed along with the petition and that the matter is still under investigation, we do not find any good ground for interference through the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil