Mutation entries in revenue records are purely fiscal in nature and do not create or extinguish title to property; therefore, an incorrect mutation entry does not constitute a criminal offense.

Order

1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 26.09.2018, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Todaraisingh, District Tonk, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioner before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, District Tonk, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 03.10.2019.

3. Contents of the instant petition indicate that the mutation of the subject land was entered in the name of one -Ratan Lal by the petitioner along with other accused, i.e. the concerned Patwari- Ramesh Lal Jhakar. It was alleged in the FIR that the subject land belonged to the complainant, however, giving the benefit of ownership of the subject land to the accused, the alleged exercise of wrongful mutation was done in the accused-Ratan Lal’s favour in the revenue records. After registration of FIR, the Investigating Authority submitted an application before the District Collector (Revenue Record), Tonk for grant of prosecution sanction against the petitioner in the aforesaid case but the District Collector vide its order dated 21.11.2017 refused to grant the sanction and held that no prima facie case is made out to issue sanction order in this regard. It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 21.11.2017, an appeal has been preferred by the Investigating Authority and the same was also rejected. The police submitted Final Report (Negative) in favour of the petitioner, against which a protest petition was submitted by the complainant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Todaraisingh, District Tonk where Final Report (Negative) has been rejected and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner along with other co-accused person Ramesh Jhakhar for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mutation entries are simply fiscal entries in the revenue record and the validity of the same was assailed by the complainant-Ghasi by way of filling a suit for declaration and correction of entries in the revenue record and before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer and during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the parties have settled their dispute by entering into a compromise and on the basis of the compromise an order was passed on 29.04.2014 and the revenue record has been rectified and the mutation entries have been corrected in favour of the complainant. He further submits that records of revenue entries are simply deal with fiscal entries, which does not give rise to any rights in favour of any person and on this count alone, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated and the same amounts to abuse of the process of law as the same has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Bhawani Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. , in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 2740/2013, decided on 25.07.2017. He further submits that under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Court below are liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the accused along with other co-accused persons misused their position by making incorrect entries in favour of other a