JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. This common order shall decide both the abovementioned petitions as they arise out of similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-M 18904 -2017(O&M).

2. The petitioners have approached this Court for the second time by the present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No. 59 dated 21.05.2015 under Sections 420/467/468/120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana. (Annexure P-3)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined as a Clerk on 01.12.1994 with the Municipal Council, Payal, and was allotted the task of house tax assessment. On 07.05.2007, a resolution bearing no. 542 was passed by the Municipal Council directing a new assessment for the collection of tax to be made, owing to the allotment of new house numbers in the town. In lieu of the same, the petitioner along with other staff deputed in this regard, prepared the house tax assessment. In the meeting dated 28.06.2007, house tax assessment list was submitted. Thereafter, as per rules, the assessment list was published in two state level newspaper i.e. Rozana Jagbani and Rozana Tribune, to bring it to the notice of general public. Apart from this, an announcement was also made asking the general public to raise objections, if any. Consequently, 147 objections were raised but respondent No.2 did not raise any objection.

4. The respondent No.2/complainant-Jagdish Singh and his brother Harjit Singh (the co-accused) were co-owners of share each in the residential property. Eventually, Harjit Singh sold his share in the house vide sale deed dated 20.01.2004, which was attested vide Vasika No- 2717 in favour of Jagdish Singh, who had taken a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from ICICI Bank for the same. The entry reflecting the sale was also made in the record of Municipal Council, Payal. However, complainant came to know that Harjit Singh in connivance with witness Pritpal Singh Ex. MC and Rajinder Singh and purchaser Darshan Singh has got prepared one fictitious sale deed dated 17.10.2014.

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is a public servant within the meaning of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., which provides for a sanction of the appropriate Government to be mandatorily obtained before prosecution of a public servant. The petitioner made the house tax assessment in the name of the person who was in the occupancy of the said house in pursuance of the official duty imposed on him. However, in this case the sanction of the government was not taken. Furthermore, on 30.05.2006, a family settlement took place wherein all the properties were partitioned and the house was given to Harjit Singh (Annexure P-9). Therefore, in view of the said settlement and the record of the tax assessment in Municipal Council, Harjit Singh was the owner of the house. Hence, any sale executed by Harjit Singh would be legal in nature and no offence qua the same can be made out against the petitioner.

6. Moreover, the entry in the assessment register is not a document of title but is merely prepared to recover the house tax from the occupier. Additionally, the Tax Summary (TS) certificate only shows that the person is paying property tax and does not declare anybody to be the owner of the concerned property. Also, the house falls in abadi deh and accordingly, whosoever is in the possession will be deemed to be the owner. Learned counsel further contends that no offence under Sections 420,467,468,120-B of IPC is made out and it is purely a civil dispute that has been given a criminal colour.

7. Per contra learned counsel of the respondent contends that the petitioner intentionally omitted the entry at the time of preparing new assessment register and thereafter falsely recorded Harjit Singh as the owner of the disputed property. Subsequently, this record wa