2013 Supreme(Raj) 765
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Rameshwar and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2476 of 2012.
Decided On : 7-02-2013
For the Petitioners:R.S. Shekhawat, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Chandralekha, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondents No. 2:J.K. Suthar for R.S. Choudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondents: A. Kumar, S.H.O. and Rawatsar, Present in person.
A simple mutation claimed to have been entered fraudulently in the land records cannot be considered to be a forgery of a valuable security.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF FIR - SECTIONS 420, 467, 468, 471 AND 120-B IPC - Mutation Entry - Forgery - Whether a simple mutation claimed to have been entered fraudulently in the land records can be considered to be a forgery of a valuable security.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought quashing of FIR alleging forgery and cheating in mutation entries of ancestral agricultural land. The complainant alleged that the petitioners connived with the Sarpanch and prepared a false succession certificate, excluding the complainant's mother's name, and got the mutation of the land transferred in their names.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mutation entry in question was made 23 years ago, and there was no objection from the complainant's side at that time. The court also noted that the complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to support the claim that his mother was a legal heir of the deceased landowner.
Issues: 1. Whether a simple mutation claimed to have been entered fraudulently in the land records can be considered to be a forgery of a valuable security? 2. Whether the continuance of the investigation of the FIR impugned is an abuse of the process of the Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., wherein it was held that mutation proceedings are fiscal inquiries and do not create or extinguish title. 2. The court held that the execution of the mutation entry in question way back in 1990 cannot give rise to any offence and that permitting the continuance of the investigation of the FIR impugned is an abuse of the process of the Court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners-Rameshwar son of Surja Ram, Ramdev son of Rameshwar (Ramdev has wrongly been mentioned as son of Surja Ram in the memo of misc. petition) and Prithvi Raj son of Kishna Ram seeking quashing of the FIR No. 483/2012, registered at the Police Station Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this misc. petition are that the respondent-complainant No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh against the petitioners alleging inter alia that the land measuring 38 bighas in Chak 3 RWM and 36 bighas in Chak 9 DWM was entered into the name of complainant's maternal grand father (nana) namely Surja Ram. Surja Ram expired on 18.6.1990 living behind off springs namely his son Rameshwar and daughter Bhuri Devi, who was the complainant's mother. The complainant claimed that Surja Ram had three legal heirs including his wife. The complainant further alleged that after the death of Surja Ram, his land was continued to be in the possession of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Rameshwar and his son Ramdev. The complainant's mother Bhuri Devi expired in the year 1979. Thereafter, the complainant, his brothers and sisters repeatedly requested the petitioners Rameshwar and Ramdev that the ancestral agricultural land should be partitioned and their share should be given to them. On the one pretext or the other, the accused avoided to do so. The complainant further alleged that his maternal grand mother (nani) i.e. Pari Devi wife of Surja Ram expired on 14.4.1993, whereas, the complainant's mother Bhuri Devi had expired 33 years ago living behind 11 sons and daughters. The complainant took out a copy of the revenue record of the agricultural land in question from the concerned office on 4.9.2012 and found that the accused petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 connived with the Sarpanch Prithvi Raj of the Gram Panchayat concerned and prepared a false and fraudulent succession certificate, in which, only two legal heirs of Surja Ram were shown. The complainant's mother's name was not entered into the succession deed. On the basis of the fraudulent succession certificate, the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 got the mutation of the ancestral lands located at Chak 3 RWM and 36 bighas in Chak 9 DWM transferred in their own names and in the name of their mother Pari Devi on 10.7.1990. Thereafter, the accused persons also got Pari Devi's land mutated in their name on 11.2.2008 fraudulently. The complainant alleged that the mutation entries were fraudulently executed by the accused and as such their act amounted to offence.
3. The complaint thus filed by the complainant was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and an FIR being FIR No. 483/2012 was registered at the Police Station Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
4. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 who are the legal heirs of the deceased Surja Ram being his son and grandson respectively and the petitioner No. 3 Prithvi Raj, who was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned at the relevant time have now approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR impugned under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel Shri R.S. Shekhawat appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that at the time when the mutation entries were made, there was no provision of law, whereby, a married daughter of a male Hindu man could be entitled for a share in his property. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are being involved in this case merely on the basis of the alleged fraudulent mutation entries. He submits that the mutation entries which have been entered in the record are simple fiscal entries and do not give any rights over the property. He thus submits that the allegation of the
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
