The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of obtaining previous sanction before ordering an investigation against a public servant and the protection provided to public officials against false and frivolous cases by the Maharashtra Amendment to Sec. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

1. Criminal Application No.1271 of 2022 has been filed for assist to learned APP. Said application stands allowed and disposed of.

2. Applicant in ABA No.379 of 2022 is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.90 of 2022, dtd. 4/3/2022, registered with Ambajogai City Police Station, District Beed, for the offence punishable under Sec. 468, 469 r.w.34 of the IPC.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. J. Salunke for applicant, learned APP Mr. V. M. Kagne for respondent-State well assisted by learned Advocate Mr. S. Y. Mahajan for informant.

4. The applicant has been shown as accused No.5 in the FIR. The applicant is serving as Deputy Superintendent of Land Records at Ambajogai. As per the informant, he along with his brothers had purchased land admeasuring 23 Acres 11 Gunthas in Survey No.473-A and 473-B from one Vitthal Ram Pawar by sale deed dtd. 14/7/1970. Mutation entries in respect of the said sale deed were taken and the names of the purchasers have been mutated in the record of rights. Informant then says that he received 1 Hector 31 R land in partition and father of accused No.3 namely Shankar Satwa Jadhav (Kaikadi) then sold his entire land. Therefore, no land was remaining in his name after 1988. No effect of the same was taken in the land records and taking disadvantage of the wrong entries accused No.3 has executed sale deed in favour of accused No.1 and 2 on 22/2/2021. Informant then says that accused No.5 i.e. the present applicant and accused No.6 without carrying actual measurement prepared false and bogus record showing that the land of the informant in a way sold by accused No.3. No proper procedure was followed at the time of measurement which was carried out at the behest of accused No.1. Notices for the measurement of the land were issued to the adjacent land owners by Speed Post/RPAD and as per the possession, shown by the respective adjacent owners, the measurement was carried out and the boundaries were fixed on 12/6/2021 and 12/7/2021 respectively. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted to finalize the report and accordingly the report was submitted. It is the case of the prosecution that informant had made grievance to the office of the applicant stating that the sale deed was bogus and the measurement is not proper, and therefore, the applicant had immediately taken cognizance and communicated the informant that he should pay the fees for the measurement. Even the applicant had communicated to accused No.1 that he should not carry out the construction of any compound or any other construction activity in the disputed land. Informant was asked that if he has any kind of grievance, then he should deposit the fees. The informant then filed an appeal against the measurement carried out by Deputy Superintendent of Land Records. That appeal came to be allowed and the measurement carried out and map prepared was cancelled on 27/9/2021. Thereafter also the applicant had followed the order and taken the entries on the map that it is cancelled. Therefore, whatever was the duty of the applicant he has done that, but it cannot be said that he has committed any offence. He has not forged any document.

5. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the complainant had filed initially the private complaint and in that complaint he had stated that though he had gone to police station to lodge the report, his complaint was not taken, and therefore, he had sent a written complaint by registered post to police station. That was also not taken cognizance, and therefore, he filed the complaint and prayed for issuance of directions under Sec. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate allowed the same on 2/3/2022. In the said complaint also the present applicant was shown as accused No.5. The learned Magistrate had not considered decision in Anil Kumar vs. M. K. Aiyappa and Anr., reported in 2014 CRI.L.J. 1 (Supreme Court). In this case obtaining of sanction which is a mandatory requirement under