1996 Supreme(Raj) 1140
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.A.A.Khan, J.
Fateh Singh Rathore - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondent
Crl. Misc. Petition No. 155 of 1992.
Decided On : 22-07-1996
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: None.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sharda Pathak, P.P.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. V.S. Bishnoi, Advocate.
The High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the proceedings amount to abuse of process of the court or are initiated with mala fide intention to harass the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - QUASHING - ABUSE OF PROCESS - RAJASTHAN COLONISATION ACT, 1954 - SECTIONS 13, 13A, 22 - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTIONS 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B - LAND EXCHANGE - SURRENDER OF LAND - POSSESSION - AGREEMENT FOR SALE - REGULARISATION OF LAND - CRIMINAL PROSECUTION - MALA FIDES - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - SECTION 482 CR.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, was allotted agricultural land in exchange for land surrendered by him to the State Government. The petitioner's cousin, Respondent No. 2, entered into an agreement for sale of the petitioner's land to his minor son. The State Government cancelled the allotment of land to the petitioner and directed the authorities to take possession of the land. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order in the High Court and obtained a stay order. The State Government then directed the police to take action against the petitioner for cheating, forgery, and other offences. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings, alleging that they were initiated with mala fide intention to harass him.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounted to abuse of process of the court. The court noted that the petitioner had surrendered the land to the State Government and the relevant entries were made in the revenue records. The court also noted that the State Government had itself doubted the genuineness of the power of attorney and agreement for sale executed by the petitioner's cousin. The court concluded that the prosecution was launched with the oblique motive of harassing the petitioner for seeking protection of his legal rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounted to abuse of process of the court? 2. Whether the High Court had the power to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounted to abuse of process of the court because they were initiated with mala fide intention to harass him. The court noted that the petitioner had surrendered the land to the State Government and the relevant entries were made in the revenue records. The court also noted that the State Government had itself doubted the genuineness of the power of attorney and agreement for sale executed by the petitioner's cousin. 2. The court held that it had the power to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the proceedings amounted to abuse of process of the court and were initiated with mala fide intention to harass the petitioner.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
1. - This petition seeking to get the criminal proceedings, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner quashed and dropped arises under the following circumstances.
2. On resumption and in lieu of his Jagir of village Choradya the State Government, at the recommendation of the Khud-Kasht Commissioner, had allotted to and conferred khatedari rights upon the petitioner in respect of 49 Bighas and 15 Biswas of agricultural land of Khasra Nos. 120/349 (5 Bighas), 123/354 (24 Bighas 15 Biswas) and 117/351 (20 Bighas) in Chak I STV (Annopgarh) Tehsil Raisinghnagar, Distt. Ganganagar. Being in the service of the State Government in its Forest Deptt. the petitioner found it difficult to manage the said agricultural property. Therefore while he was posted directed, Tiger Protection Plan, Wild Life at Sawai Madhopur he decided to settle dow Accordingly he made a request to Government through collector Sawin to allot to him agricultural land in Khasra adjoining to 'Bagh Pariyojna' (Tiger I Plan) at Sawai Madhopur in exchange of he agricultural land at 1 STV (Anoopgarh), atop said. After conducting necessary enquiries both the places the State Government accepted the propsal and request made by the petitioner. He was, therefore allotted 49 Bighas of agricultural land of Khasra No. 58 ad measuring 52 Bighas 10 Biswas at Sawai Madhopur (village Madhosinghpura) vide Collector Sawai Madhopur's order dated Feb., 14,1982. Relevant entries in the records of rights, as maintained by the State Government in respect of agricultural land, were also made describing the petitioner as Khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 58 and measuring 49 Bighas of village Madosinghpura. This all was done after having felt satisfied that the petitioner had surrendered all his rights to and title in the 49 Bighas and 15 Biswas of agricultural land of Chak I STV Anoopgarh, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, Distt. Sri Ganganagar and the Tehsildar Colonisation had already taken over the possession of the said land from the petitioner.
3. After the lapse of about one year of the above proceedings somehow it came to the notice and knowledge of the State Government that the petitioner had appointed his cousin, Sri. Prabhu Singh who is/was the father of present Respondent No.2 Capt. Ghanshyam Singh as his Mukhtare Aam in the year 1979 and the said Sri. Parbhoo Singh had entered into an agreement for sale of the land belonging to the petitioner in 1 STV (Anoopgarh) to his own minor son, Respondent No. 2 who was then a student at Mao College Ajmer and for whom Sri. Parbhoo Singh had got himself appointed as Mukhtare Khas. The said Sri. Parbhoo Singh appears to have sought the permission of the State Government to sell the land of the petitioner at 1 STV to his son, Respondent No-2, (for a consideration of Rs. 1,98,000/-which is stated to have been received by him from his minor son at the time of execution of the agreement for sale dated 13.4.82 but such request was turned down by the State Government on 13.9.97. Curiously enough the order passes on 13.9.97 was reconsidered and permission to sell the land was allegedly accorded to Sri. Parbhoo Singh on 3.10.79 vide Deputy Secy's letter No. F-3(246) Raj/Up/79 dated 1.10.79. But no sale deed has so far been admittedly executed in favour of Sri. Ghanashyam Singh Respondent. No. 2. On receipt of such information a report was called for from the authorities in the Colonisation Deptt. and on Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation) Bikaner reporting that no entries regarding the exchange of the land were made by then in the relevant records the State Government cancelled the allotment of 49 Bighas land of Khasra No. 58 of Madhosinghpura in favour of the petitioner and directed the District level authorities at Sawai Madhopur to take possession of the allotted land from the petitioner.
4. His rights in the allotted land of Khasra No. 58 of village Madhosinghpura having been threatened in the manner stated above the petitione
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
