Ashok Kumar vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 17 dated 16.5.1996 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(C) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings based thereupon qua petitioner Ashok Kumar S/o Budh Ram, Qanungo, Bhatinda.

The petitioner was posted as Qanungo in Tehsil Bhatinda in the year 1990. One Sh. Hardev Singh, since deceased, was posted as Naib Tehsildar. An application for correction of Khasra Girdawari was moved by one Atma Singh seeking the correction of Khasra No. 2848 in the area of Patti Mehna, Tehsil Bhatinda measuring about 80 Bighas. The said application, copy Annexure P1, which was addressed to the Tehsildar Bhatinda was entrusted to late Shri Hardev Singh, Naib Tehsildar for enquiry. The said application was subsequently marked to the petitioner for enquiring into and to take action as per the spot inspection. The petitioner visited the spot on 14.8.1990. Amrik Singh, Lambardar accompanied by Jeeta Singh and Atma Singh applicant were present at the time of the spot inspection. The petitioner found that Atma Singh was in cultivatory possession of 58 bighas and 10 biswas of the total area of 80 bighas of the land comprising khasra No. 2848 (Min). The petitioner submitted his report accordingly recommending that entry in Khasra Girdawari be made in favour of Atma Singh. The report was submitted on 14.8.1990. On the basis of this report, Khasra Girdawari was corrected in the name of Atma Singh under the orders of the Naib Tehsildar, late Shri Hardev Singh. It was mentioned that no change in the entry of the column of ownership of the land was recommended and made in the Khasra Girdawari. The ownership of the land remained as Shamlat. The entry in the column of cultivator was, however, made in favour of Atma Singh showing him as a cosharer. One Niko D/o Pyare Lal was also shown in cultivating possession of 6 bighas of land of the aforesaid khasra number. Later on, Atma Singh filed civil suit No. 1403 of 19.10.1990 against Amrik Singh, Lambardar and other covillagers seeking declaration to the effect that he was the owner and in possession of 58 bighas and 10 biswas of the aforesaid land comprising khasra No. 2848 (Min). The suit was decreed by Sub Judge, Bhatinda vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.1990. It was, however, contended that Gram Panchayat was not impleaded as a party in the said civil suit and Atma Singh was declared as the owner of the land by virtue of adverse possession. It is further alleged that the land in question was acquired by the Government and Atma Singh claimed compensation for the acquired land and also received the same. Some residents of Village Patti Mehna filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Bhatinda in a representative capacity on behalf of all the cosharers of Shamlat land situated in Patti Mehna, for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, Bhatinda on 10.10.1990. It was alleged that the said decree had been obtained by paractising fraud on the Court by Atma Singh, plaintiff in collusion with Amrik Singh, Lambardar and also sought a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and all the persons whom they represented were the owners in possession of land. This civil suit is, however, pending for disposal. lt has been contended that after about six years the impugned FIR was registered on 16.5.1996 against the plaintiff alleging about his complicity regarding change in the entry of Khasra Girdawari in collusion with Atma Singh. This report was registered at the instance of Shri Kuldip Singh, DSP Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Bhatinda. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the impugned FIR on the ground that he conducted the enquiry, spot inspection and submitted his report in pursuance of orders passed by his superior officers and he did so in due discharge of his duty. He denied the allegations to the contrary made in the impugned FIR. It was also contended that the judgment and decree, copy Annexure P3, dated 10.10.1990 passed by Sub Judge, Bhatinda was under challenge in the civil suit which was pending before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. A plea of bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has also been taken that without taking the prior sanction of the competent authority the case could not be registered and proceeded against the petitioner. In the alternative the petitioner prayed for staying the proceedings in the criminal case pending the decision of the matter by the civil court of competent jurisdiction.

Notice was issued to the respondents. Reply was filed by the Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur Range in the shape of affidavit of DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Shri Mahal Singh, PPS. In the reply it was contended that the application of Atma Singh was entrusted to late Shri Hardev Singh, Naib Tehsildar, as per the land law and the rules but the Naib Tehsildar instead of deciding the application himself entrusted the same to the petitioner and Halqa Patwari in connivance with Atma Singh accused and Gurtej Singh, Halqa Patwari, and submitted the report in favour of Atma Singh regarding his possession over the land in question comprising of Kharsra No. 2848. It was, however, admitted that a civil suit was pending in the Court of competent jurisdiction filed by the villagers in representative capacity challenging the judgment and decree granted by the civil Court in favour of Atma Singh. It was, however, contended that the present case had no concern with the civil suit pending in the Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully perused the record of the case.

The question regarding the ownership right of Atma Singh in respect of the disputed land and his possession thereon which was found by the civil Court decreeing his suit for declaration is under challenge in another civil suit filed by covillagers in a representative capacity. The civil suit filed by Atma Singh was decreed on the basis of his possession reported after enquiry by the revenue authorities including the petitioner. It is relevant to mention that in the said civil suit the report of the petitioner will come up for consideration and a finding thereon is expected to be recorded during the hearing of the civil suit. Since the genuineness of the report of the petitioner is under challenge in the criminal case which is sought to be impugned as also before the civil court inasmuch as the decree obtained by Atma Singh on the basis of the report of the petitioner is under challenge before the civil Court, I deem it appropriate that the criminal proceedings should be ordered to be stayed to await the final outcome of the said civil suit. The finding of the civil Court regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the report of the petitioner regarding the possession of Atma Singh''s land to a large extent materially and substantially affect the matter pending before the criminal Court.

Resultantly, this petition is allowed to the extent that the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are stayed qua the petitioner till the decision of the civil suit No. 1403 of 19.10.1990.