IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA th ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34555 of 2024 ARVIND PARASHAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shanti Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State-respondent no.1.

Reserved on: 14.11.2024 Pronounced on: 10.12.2024 ORDER This petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) has been filed for seeking quashment of FIR and all consequential proceedings registered against petitioner in context of Crime No.361/2023 of Police Station, Road Pipariya, district Narmadapuram, for the offence of Sections

420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this petition are that Supal Singh, son of Fakkad Singh, resident of village Dob, Tahsil Babai, district Narmadapuram, challenged the sale-deed of property of Survey No.3, 6/3, 6/4, 6/5, having area respectively 1.586, 0.113, 0.405 and 0.910 hectares; according to him, this property was of his ownership and was never sold by him; he further claimed that a wrong entry of mutation was made in revenue Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT documents showing him as dead and registering the name of other persons, while he is very much alive and those other persons are not his legal heirs; it has further been claimed that on the basis of this wrong mutation entry, the property of complainant was wrongly sold; an enquiry was held by Naib Tahsildar and, along with the enquiry report as well as other documents, a written complaint was made to Police Station, Road Pipariya. On their basis, FIR was registered and matter was investigated. The crime of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was found to have been committed and the role of petitioner in the commission of crime is claimed to be that he prepared a report and spot-memo in which correct information about death and also about the legal heirs was purposely concealed. It appears from the case diary that a charge-sheet against some of the accused persons has already been filed.

3. The ground on which this petition has been filed is that one Gauribai filed an application for mutation whose father-in-law’s name was Supal Singh and he had passed away many years ago; on the basis of this similarity in names, she applied for mutation entry on the property of actual Supal Singh, who is still alive; petitioner issued an “Aprapyata Praman Patra” (Annexure A-3) regarding the non-registration of death of Supal Singh son of Fakkad Singh; allowing the application of Gauribai, Tahsildar/ Executive Magistrate, Pipariya, district Narmadapuram, passed an order that he was satisfied with the information about the death of Supal Singh son of Fakkad Singh and, therefore, the said death be registered in the death register; it is claimed by petitioner that he being the Sub-Registrar/Secretary of Gram Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT Panchayat had the responsibility to execute that order of Tahsildar about registration of death and issue the death certificate and he merely performed his legal duty in good faith; protection under Section 28 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short, “the Act”) is available to him as he had no role in modifying the mutation entries in favour of Gauribai nor in the sale of property belonging to Supal Singh; his act was innocent and without any dishonest intention. On these basis, it is prayed that the FIR and all consequential proceedings registered against petitioner be quashed.

4. State has opposed the petition claiming that petitioner has played an active role in issuing false report and spot-memo regarding the death of Supal Singh and about his legal heirs.

5. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and the case diary has been perused.

6. Section 28 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read