RASHID BAKSH Vs. RAJENDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dtd. 7/2/2009 against the order passed at the behest of respondent No.1, who was working as Tehsildar, Bilaspur.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that Khuda Baksh, who is the father of the petitioner, purchased a land along with Smt. Kalpavalli, respondent No.2. The land is bearing Khasra No.1383, admeasuring 1.00 acres, situated at Mangala, Patwari Circle No.21, R.I. Circle Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, which falls under Ward No.1, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur. The date of purchase was on 20/2/1998 from one Samaliya vide Annexure P-1. Khuda Baksh died on 16/7/1998 after 5 months of the purchase. The death certificate is Annexure P-2. After his death initially an application was filed by respondent No.2 Smt. Kalpavalli Arnold on 17/4/2004 for mutation of her name under Sec. 109 and 110 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code, 1959) before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar issued notice and on 8/10/2004 passed an order of mutation of name of Kalpavalli Arnold and Khuda Baksh S/o Ilahi Baksh. Subsequently, after mutation an application was filed for partition of the land. In the said application, notices were issued and eventually after alleged service of the notice, order of partition was passed by Tehsildar on 23/1/2004. The petitioner contends that he being son of Khuda Baksh when came to know about the fact of such partition, an appeal was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer to annul the same.

(3.) The Sub Divisional Officer after hearing the parties by an order dtd. 23/6/2008 (Annexure P-5) set aside such order of partition. Subsequently, the petitioner made a report to the police vide (Annexure P-6) on 12/7/2007 however no action was taken by police and eventually arraying the co-owner Smt. Kalpavalli Arnold and the then Tehsildar Rajendra Gupta a complaint was filed under Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C. before JMFC to register an offence under Sec. 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. The statements of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded and the learned Judicial Magistrate by its order dtd. 16/1/2009 ordered for registration of an offence against the respondent under Sectoins 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474 of the IPC. The private respondents filed two criminal revisions separately which were bearing Nos. 52/2009 and 59/2009 both the criminal revisions were decided simultaneously by order dtd. 7/2/2009 holding that the respondent No.1 Rajendra Gupta who was working as Tahsildar has done the job while discharging his duty in his official capacity as such the sanction under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. was mandatory and allowed the revision. Being aggrieved by such order this instant petition.