AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In these two petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings in PCR No. 190/2010 pending on the file of JMFC at Anekal and FIR No. 189/2010 registered by respondent No. 1 police. Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint in PCR No. 190/2010 against the petitioners herein and three others. In the private complaint it is contended that land in survey No. 74 measuring 3 acres 39 guntas situated at Honnakalasapura village, Anekal taluk was granted to father of respondent No. 2 by way of grant in the year 1926. One Marakka created false sale deed and on that basis revenue entries in respect of the land in question came to be changed in the year 1974. Respondent No. 2, on coming to know about it, initiated proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner by filing a revision petition in R.P. No. 109/2004-05. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 10.10.2005 directed the Special Tahsildar, Anekal to conduct an enquiry. The Special Tahsildar in turn directed the Revenue Inspector to submit a report. Accordingly on 13.01.2006 the Revenue Inspector submitted a report. Since the Special Tahsildar failed to take action on the report of the Revenue Inspector respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta. Simultaneously respondent No. 2 also brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner about the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector. The Deputy Commissioner in turn directed the Tahsildar to take action. Again on 30.07.2010 the Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to take action on the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector. Accordingly the petitioner (in W.P. No. 4360/2010) who is the Special Tahsildar of Anekal taluk passed an order on 06.08.2010 as per Annexure C holding that there is no merit in the contention of respondent No. 2.
At that stage respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint against the petitioners and others on 07.08.2010 as per Annexure A before the trial Court. In the private complaint respondent No. 2 has prayed the trial Court to direct respondent No. 1 police to register a case for the offences punishable u/s 192A(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code. The jurisdictional Magistrate under the impugned order dated 09.08.2010 referred the matter to respondent No. 1 police for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.
Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petitions papers.
On 06.08.2010 the petitioner (in W.P. No. 4360/2010) passed an order as per Annexure C rejecting the contention of respondent No. 2. On the very next date the respondent No. 2 has filed the private complaint before jurisdictional Magistrate. In the private complaint the respondent No. 2 has not disclosed the order passed by the petitioners on 06.08.2010. Further the order passed by the petitioner dated 06.08.2010 is an appealable order u/s 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is brought to my notice that respondent No. 2 has already filed an appeal against the order passed by the petitioner dated 06.08.2010. Therefore the private complaint filed by respondent No. 2 is not maintainable. A reading of the private complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 do not disclose the essential ingredients to constitute an offence either u/s 217 IPC or u/s 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The allegations in the private complaint are vague, not specific and no particulars are disclosed and patently absurd. Therefore the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
For the reasons stated above the following:
ORDER
The petitions are hereby allowed.
The proceedings in PCR No. 190/2010 pending of the file of JMFC, Anekal and FIR No. 189/2010 registered by respondent police are hereby quashed.
Ordered accordingly.