JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Singh Parihar, for the applicant, Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A.-1 and Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant have challenged validity of the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (M.P., M.L.A.)/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5, Pratapgarh in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2022 and the cognizance and summoning order dated 18.08.2022 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 129 of 2015 in the Court of Special Judge M.P. M.L.A./Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C. II, Pratapgarh, which arose out of F.I.R. No. 61 of 2015 lodged by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh on 21.03.2015 in Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh, against two officials of the revenue department – an Ahalmad and a Registrar Kanoongo, and unnamed beneficiaries of the offence, in compliance of an order dated 15.09.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7611 of 2014 – Kamlesh Singh versus State of U. P. and others.

3. F.I.R. No. 61 of 2015 was lodged by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh on 21.03.2015 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. against two officials of the revenue department – an Ahalmad and a Registrar Kanoongo, and unnamed beneficiaries of the offence, in compliance of an order dated 15.09.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7611 of 2014 – Kamesh Singh versus State of U. P. and others. The F.I.R. states that a forged paper-book of Case no. 301 of 2000 in the Court of the S.D.M. Kunda and an order dated 15.05.2001 were prepared and mutation was carried out in furtherance of the aforesaid order in the Khatauni on 08.05.2012. When irregularities committed in the aforesaid proceedings came to light, the District Magistrate got an enquiry conducted by the S.D.M., who submitted an enquiry report dated 06.02.2015 against the two named accused officials and the beneficiaries of the offence.

4. The enquiry report dated 06.02.2015 submitted by the S.D.M. Sadar, Pratapgarh stated that paper book of Case No. 301 under Section 229 B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, titled “Arun Kumar Singh alias Munna and others versus Kamlesh Kumar Singh”, decided on 15.05.2001, was prepared by committing forgery and fabrication, as in the case institution register, case title “Samai versus Gram Sabha, Gram Malava Chhajaipur” is recorded against Case No. 301 under Section 229 B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The entire order-sheet of the paper-book is in one handwriting and it mentions that the submissions of both the parties were heard, whereas the defendant Kamlesh Kumar Singh had not put in appearance in the case. Moreover, Arun Kumar Singh filed a caveat in the Court of the Divisional Commissioner 11 years after passing of the order, which also establishes that the paper-book has been fabricated.

5. Initially the Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report dated 27.03.2016 stating that previously the investigation was carried out by Sub-Inspectors Sir. Kedar Singh and Sri. Ghanshyam Nishad and after their transfer, the investigation was handed over to Senior Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar Rai. The then S.D.M. had died and for this reason, no concrete evidence could be collected on the basis whereof any person can be charged of commission of any offence.

6. The opposite party no. 3 Kamlesh Kumar Singh filed objections against the Final Report stating that his valuable land had been grabbed by the accused persons under a criminal conspiracy. The previous Investigating Officer had recorded statements of several witnesses from which commission of the offences is clearly established but the subsequent Investigating Officer has submitted the Final Report without looking into the material available on the Case Diary, after taking undue advantage from the accused person