Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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 :-