Rewa Shankar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Nandita Dubey, J

The present petition is filed against the order dated 18.01.2022 passed in Revenue Case No.0356/B-121/2021-22 by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Itarsi, Hoshangabad (Annexure P/1).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said authority cannot direct his subordinate authority i.e Tehsildar to lodge the F.I.R. against the petitioner. He placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Namen Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others- (2019) 2 SCC 344. By taking this court to paragraph No.4, 7 and 9 of the said decision, he submits that the direction issued by the Sub Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State, however, opposed the prayer and submits that under Section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the courts have inherent power to pass appropriate order as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. He further submits that while examining the complaint and after conducting inquiry if the Court under M.P. Land Revenue Code finds that some offence has been committed, the said court is well within its jurisdiction to direct for lodging of F.I.R.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-8 of the aforesaid decision has held that respondent No.4 therein who was Sub Divisional Officer, was not prevented to lodge the F.I.R. himself before the Police under section 154 of the Cr.P.C and the Sub Divisional Officer cannot exercise the power of Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C and, accordingly, the F.I.R. in that case was quashed.

In view of the aforesaid, issue notice to the respondents. P.F.be paid within seven working days. Notices be made returnable within four weeks.

As an interim measure, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 18.01.2022 (Annexure P/1) shall remain stayed. However, this order will not come in the way of the SDO or private respondent to themselves lodge the F.I.R.against the petitioner.

Certified copy today.