Prosecution of a public servant requires prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC; absence of such sanction voids the proceedings against the petitioner.

ORDER :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.PC against the impugned order dated 10.09.2014 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Birpur in Complaint Case No. 299C of 2014 whereby Ld. Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner along with other co-accused, namely, Anant Lal Purbey, Ramjee Mandal and Umesh Kumar and directed issuance of summons after filing of the requisites by the Complainant.

2. As per the complaint filed by way of protest petition, the complainant has alleged that the accused Anant Lal Purbey conspired with the co-accused including the petitioner, to get the land of the complainant mutated in his name. As per averment made in the complaint, the land in question was self acquired property of his father and it was already mutated in name of his father. After death of his father, the complainant was in possession of the land. However, the accused Anant Lal Purbey in connivance with the accused persons, including the petitioner, has got the land mutated in his own name.

3. Heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ld. APP for the State. However, nobody is present on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 despite valid service of the notice.

4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. To substantiate his claim, he submits that initially the complainant had lodged Pratapganj P.S. case No. 25 of 2013. However, after investigation, police filed final form bearing No. 21 of 2014 dated 30.04.2014, whereby the police had closed the case against all the accused persons finding no offence having been committed. However, Protest Petition was filed by the complainant against the closure of the case. The Protest Petition was treated as complaint in which the complainant and two witnesses were examined during inquiry under Section 200 of Cr.PC, whereupon the impugned order has been passed.

5. Ld. counsel for the petitioner further submits that the land in question was jointly in the names of the father of the complainant and co-accused Anant Lal Purbey and the land in question came in the share of accused Anant Lal Purbey on partition. Hence, the accused Anant Lal Purbey applied for mutation of the land in his name. Hence, Partition Mutation Case No. 151 of 2004/2005 was initiated and after receiving report from Halka Karamchari and Circle Officer and inviting objection, the land in question was mutated vide order dated 19.10.2004 in the name of co-accused Anant Lal Purbey by the Petitioner who was officiating as Circle Officer at that time. Being aggrieved by the Mutation Order, the Complainant preferred Mutation Appeal bearing no. 44 of 2011 in the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Birpur. However, the Mutation Appeal was also dismissed, holding that before the Mutation Order dated 19.10.2004, passed by the Petitioner, the land in question was mutated jointly in the name of the accused Anant Lal Purbey and his brother Harendra Purbey who was father of the Complainant and hence, after partition of the land between the accused Anant Lal Purbey and legal heirs of his brother Harendra Purbey, the land came in the share of the accused Anant Lal Purbey and hence, has been rightly mutated in the name of accused Anant Lal Purbey. Learned Appellate Authority also held that if any party has any grievance, he can prefer Partition Suit. Accordingly, the Mutation Appeal was dismissed