Bashir Khan and Others vs Babu Khan and Another

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This petition has been preferred u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Cri. Case No. 20/2009 before JMFC, Vijaypur, District Sheopur, whereby cognizance u/s 420 of the IPC has been taken against the petitioners. Brief facts of the petition are that respondent Babu Khan had filed a private complaint against the petitioners alleging that agricultural land bearing survey No. 1079 area 3.06 Aare belongs to State of M.P. Out of which, on 7 Bigha Sakuran, on 2 Bigha Babu Khan and on 5 Bigha 14 Biswa Insaf Ali were having possession for last thirty years. Accused No. 4 and 5 are Patwaris and accused No. 6 was their assistant. The Patta has been granted with the connivance of Patwaris and their assistant in favour of the petitioners. Ramkhiladi has manipulated in the Bhuadhikar Pustika and the Patta of land survey No. 1079 was allotted in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, Patwari Amarlal and Heeralal have also made an entry in the revenue papers in favour of the petitioners No. 1 to 3 as Bhumiswami. It is further alleged that Patwari Amarlal and Ramkhiladi have received the application for grant of Patta from the petitioners but the same was not presented before the Naib Tehsildar nor it was registered, but Amarlal and Ramkhiladi deliberately shown that the Patta has been issued in Case No. 15/95-96 x A-74 dated 16.8.1996 and when complainant came to know the said fact, he filed an application for obtaining the certified copy. It was noted by the concerning clerk that the said case has not been filed nor has been registered. Thereafter, Babu Khan, Sakuran and Insaf Ali filed an appeal in the Court of SDO, Vijaypur and SDO called the information regarding Case No. 15/95-96 x a-74. It was informed that no case is registered in the register. Thereafter, SDO has allowed the appeal and set aside the entries in the Khasra and directed the Naib Tehsildar to inquire into the matter and report. Thus, accused persons have made a forged entry in the revenue papers and thereafter petitioners have also got loan for tractor and thus committed forgery.

Learned Magistrate after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance against the petitioners u/s 420 of the IPC. Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred.

It is submitted that continuation of the proceedings on the basis of complaint is a abuse of process of Court, hence the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that petitioners had preferred an appeal against the order of the SDO before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, which has been allowed and the order was set aside and the mater was remanded to the SDO for further inquiry. This fact has deliberately been suppressed by the complainant, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. It is further stated that learned SDO, Vijaypur has set aside the order for want of prosecution. Thus, it is not proved that any proceeding has been initiated by the petitioners regarding grant of Patta. Prima facie the commission of offence u/s 420 of the IPC has not been proved. It is prayed that proceedings be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that learned trial Court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners. Prima facie the commission of offence u/s 420 of the IPC is made out and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

From perusal of the statement of Babu Khan it appears that he has stated on oath that he is in possession of agricultural land bearing survey No. 1079 for last thirty years. Accused No. 1 to 3 with the connivance of Amarlal, Ramkhiladi and Heeralal got Patta in their favour. He filed an appeal before the SDO, which was allowed. Nisar Ahmed, Sakuran, Insaf Ali and Munnawar Khan had corroborated the statement of Babu Khan.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that order passed by SDO in appeal has been challenged before the Commissioner, who has set aside the order of the SDO and the matter was remanded to the SDO with a direction that after hearing the parties, the same shall be decided on merits. The order sheet dated 22.1.2009 of the SDO, Vijaypur Annexure P/8 shows that in absence of the appellants and their counsel case has been dismissed for want of prosecution. It is further mentioned in the order sheet that the matter has been remanded and the order passed by the SDO has been set aside, therefore, case was sent to the Tehsildar for taking necessary action in the light of the order passed by the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not placed any material showing what action has been taken by the Tehsildar. The power u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. may be exercised namely (i) to give effect to an order, (ii) to prevent the abuse of process of Court and (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In exercise of the powers Court would be justified to quash any proceedings, if it finds that initiation/continuance of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of the Court or quashing of these proceedings Court otherwise served the ends of justice. When the complaint is sought to be quashed it is permissible to look into the material to assess what the complaint has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. In the instant case I find that there is sufficient material, which discloses the commission of offence, therefore, no case is made out to exercise the powers u/s 482 of the Code. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. Learned trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.