- (1.) In this writ petition prayer has been made to quash the F.I.R. in Case Crime No.246 of 2010 under Sections 166, 167, 218 I.P.C. and under Sections 7/13 (1)(D) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
(2.) The background facts giving rise to aforesaid case as narrated in the F.I.R. may be put briefly; One Abdulla had two sons, namely Mahbulla and Karimullah. Mahbulla remained unmarried and died issueless 35 years before.Karimullah being sole heir and representative inherited the share of immovable property including the land ( No.971) of Khata No.766 situate at Village Rabupura, Pargana and Tehsil Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar. After death of Karimullah, informant and his brothers became the owner and are in possession over the land in question. Thereafter Suleman and Ishaq, the brothers of informant Kallu also died, so their sons and wives inherited their share. Sabir son of Babu and Smt. Anwari wife of Babu having no connection with the deceased Mahdulla in any manner got their names entered surreptitiously in the revenue records PA -11B in the connivance of the accused persons who are tehsil staff, on 20.10.2009. Although later on the order dated 20.10.2009 was set aside by the Tehsildar vide order dated 25.11.2009 on an application of the informant, but on 23.10.2009 aforesaid Sabir and Smt. Anwari managed to execute a sale deed of the land in dispute in favour of one Ran Singh son of late Soran Singh on the basis of forged and fictitious entries in the revenue records. It is further alleged that accused persons would have obtained some amount and hatched up a conspiracy and without holding any inquiry made forged and fictitious entries in the revenue record in favour of Ran Singh and Smt. Anwari. Hence present F.I.R. was lodged on 30.5.2010 on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the informant, Kallu at Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar against the petitioner (Naib Tehsildar) and three other Tehsil staff under Sections 166, 167, 218 I.P.C. and under Sections 7/13 (1)(D) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioner opened vigorously the following submissions; 1) Inasmuch with regard to the said forged entries in the revenue record a case was already registered at Case Crime No.101 of 2010 on 5.5.2010 at Police Station Rabupura, District Gautam Budh Nagar under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. at the instance of one Shaukat against 11 other named persons and charge sheet has also been submitted against 8 persons only and the investigation against the petitioner is said to be still pending. More than one F.I.R. is not permissible under the law to be registered regarding same incident or the incidents. 2) The present F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay of about 7 months and so such wrong, if any, is not actionable after lapse of so many months. Eventually it casts shadow of doubt upon its authencity and reliability. 3) The Special Judge had no jurisdiction to issue directions for registration of F.I.R. and its investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. containing the allegations of committing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4) The application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. disclosing the commission of cognizable offence was liable to be rejected on the ground that sanction of the appropriate Government or authority ought to have been obtained before taking cognizance. 5) The entire incident took place at circle Rabupura and the petitioner was inlarge (Naib Tehsildar) at circle Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar on the relevant date so he was not liable for the wrong committed on 20.10.2010 and 23.10.2010. 6) The petitioner is the Government Servant ( Naib Tehsildar) at Circle Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar and no specific role has been assigned to him and it is not a case in which his arrest is reckoned to be necessary in furtherance of investigation. 7) The regular suit is the only remedy available to examine the validity of the entry dated 20.10.2010 and the parallel criminal proceeding is not permissible under the law. 8) The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is a theme borne of concoction and fabrication and if the investigation is allowed to go on qua the allegations in the F.I.R. which has its substratum in false and fabricated, it would perilously close to the abuse of process of law.;