ANIL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'CrPC') is filed by petitioner challenging the order dtd. 6/6/2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.553/2015 by which learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pithora, District Mahasamund allowed application filed by respondent under Sec. 319 of CrPC and issued summon to petitioner for his appearance.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that Tahsildar, Pithora, District Mahasamund lodged written report with the Station House Officer, Police Station Sankara, Tehsil Pithora alleging execution and registration of sale deed dtd. 22/2/2012 based on forged documents and manipulations in revenue records by Patwari Bhim Kumar Sahu. Report was lodged specifically against Bhim Kumar Sahu (accused), Patwari of PH No.50, RI Circle Sankara, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, alleging that he sold land bearing Khasra No.8, area 1.7 hectare situated at village Chouli-Patera, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, recorded in the name of Kaushalya Bai, by forging revenue records. Before execution and registration of sale deed dtd. 22/2/2012, said land was recorded in the name of Kaushalya Bai widow of Dilip, caste Raut, which she had received from government through patta and was not saleable. Patwari concerned while issuing revenue document of 16 Points has shown the said land as private land in place of government land. This revenue document is part of sale deed dtd. 22/2/2012. Hence, sale deed dtd. 22/2/2012 is illegal. Entire liability has been fixed upon Patwari Bhim Kumar Sahu. Based on this complaint of Tahsildar, FIR bearing Crime No.117/13 was registered against said Patwari for the offences defined under Ss. 420, 467, 468 of IPC. After completion of investigation, on 5/7/2013 police submitted charge sheet under Sec. 420, 467, 468 of IPC against Patwari Bhim Kumar Sahu based upon which trial Court framed charges against him under aforementioned Ss. and commenced trial. During trial, Kiran Netam was examined by prosecution as PW-1 on 6/2/17. Thereafter, on 6/5/2017 prosecution filed an application under Sec. 319 CrPC praying for arraying petitioner, Phoolwati Bai (seller), Diwakar Rana & Piluram (witnesses) as accused in criminal case along with Patwari Bhim Kumar Sahu. The Magistrate vide order dtd. 6/6/2017 allowed the application filed under Sec. 319 CrPC, took cognizance against Phoollbati Bai wife of Dilip Raut (Seller), petitioner herein (purchaser), Diwakar Rana & Piluram, witnesses to sale deed, under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and issued summons for their appearance. It is this order of the Court below which is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would argue that in the entire charge sheet as also evidence of Kiran Netam (PW-1), there is nothing to suggest that petitioner was in any manner involved in commission of alleged offence. Petitioner is bona fide purchaser of land and there is no material to show that petitioner was aware of the fact that original owner Kaushalya Bai has died and Phoolwati Bai had impersonated her. On coming to know that sale transaction is tainted with fraud, he immediately filed a civil suit for declaring sale deed dtd. 22/2/2012 as null and void. He contended that investigating agency after receipt of complaint by the revenue officer, which is only against the Patwari concerned, had enquired into allegations contained in complaint and submitted charge sheet against Patwari only. Outcome of investigation, which forms part of charge sheet, does not show that petitioner was having knowledge that transaction of sale of property, which he is purchasing, is tainted with fraud. In absence of any strong evidence showing involvement of petitioner in commission of alleged offence, the Court below ought not to have allowed the application under Sec. 319 CrPC for arraying petitioner as an accused. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on judgment in case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & ors, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92; Shiv Prakash Mishra vs. State of UP and anr, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 806; Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. State of UP & anr, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 608.