ANIL SINGH Vs. CHHOTELAL GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent against the applicant and other co-accused persons, which is pending in the Court of JMFC, Satna in RCT No.4235/2017 and RCT No.714/2017.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent filed a criminal complaint against the applicant and against Manbharan Tiwari and Shanti Devi on the allegation that one Chhotelal respondent was the owner of Khasra nos.154 and 155 area 8.44 acres and 2.13 acres respectively. Half of Khasra nos.154 and 155 was purchased from Ramhit S/o Mahadev for a consideration of Rs. 200/- by registered sale deed dated 24/12/1966 and the name of respondent was mutated in the revenue record by order dated 26/7/1967 passed by Tahsildar and the remaining half portion of Khasra nos.154 and 155 was the ancestral property of respondent, which he had got in partition. It was alleged that in the year 1987-88, 0.415 hectare out of Khasra no.154 was acquired for construction of Rewa-Satna Railway Track and another 3 hectares of land was acquired in the year 1990-91 for construction of Rewa-Satna Railway Track and compensation was also paid to the complainant. The name of respondent continued to remain in the revenue record from 1966-67 to 2012-13. It was further alleged that accused nos.1 and 2 in connivance with the applicant and with an intention to grab the land, filed an application before the Court of SDO, Satna for correction in the Khasra Panchshala, in which it was mentioned that the total area of Khasra no.154 is 3.415 hectares and Mahadev and Ramkhelawan were the owner of the said land. Mahadev and his son Ramhit have expired and accused nos.1 and 2 are the legal representatives of Ramhit, whereas Ramkhelawan is alive, however, by mistake the name of respondent was recorded in the revenue records, therefore, the same may be corrected. It was alleged that no notice was given to the respondent and somebody else was produced in place of respondent and his thumb impressions were obtained on the court proceedings and forged Vakalatnama, compromise and affidavit were filed in the court of SDO and somebody else by impersonating the respondent was produced in the court of SDO and his forged statement was recorded and ultimately an order on 19/3/2013 was obtained by accused nos.1 and 2 from the court of SDO, Satna directing for deletion of the name of respondent and mutation of the name of accused nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, accused nos.1 and 2 filed an application before the court of Tahsildar, Tahsil Raghu Nagar, District Satna for recording of their names and it was mentioned that Ramkhelawan has expired. The applicant submitted a false and fabricated report and on the basis of false and fabricated report of the applicant, the names of accused nos.1 and 2 were recorded in Khasra no.154/1, area 3 hectares. It was alleged that Ramkhelawan had already expired about 60 years back and no person in the name of Ramkhelawan is residing in village Kaima. Ramkhelawan had not expired issueless and he had two sons, namely, Ramsajivan and Jagdish. Ramsajivan had four sons and two daughters, whereas Jagdish had one son (respondent). It was further alleged that in the application, which was filed in the court of SDO, it was mentioned that Ramkhelawan is alive, whereas in the application, which was filed in the month of April, 2013 before the Court of Tahsildar for execution of the order of SDO seeking mutation, it was alleged that Ramkhelawan has expired and a forged certificate was produced that Ramkehlawan has expired on 15/6/1990. Thus, by producing the forged certificate as well as forged report, accused nos.1 and 2 in connivance with the applicant have got their names mutated in the revenue records. It was further alleged that the respondent was not aware of the activities of the accused persons. For obtaining the Kisan Credit Card when the respondent obtained Khasra Panchshala of his land, then he came to know that in Khasra no.154/1 the names of accused nos.1 and 2 are recorded and thereafter, he went to the court of Tahsildar and obtained the certified copy of the documents and thereafter, he came to know that the accused nos.1 and 2 in connivance with the applicant have got their names mutated in respect of the land, which now belongs to the Revenue Department. The respondent made a complaint to the police, but since the police did not take any action, accordingly, the complaint was filed.

(3.) After recording the statements of the witnesses under sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., 1973 the trial court took cognizance of the offence against accused nos.1 and 2 as well as against the applicant.