BHAJAN LAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No. 618/2022 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 of IPC against the petitioner and entire criminal proceedings pursuant to impugned FIR.

(2.) The allegations in the FIR is that the land bearing Khasra No. 190 renumbered as Khasra No. 190/6 was originally belongs to Vishnu Prasad (forefather of the petitioner). Vishnu Prasad sold the land to Amritlal Gujrati vide sale-deed dtd. 25/1/1946 and subsequently the said portion of the land was transferred from one person to other. It is also alleged that Krishna Natthani, Shankarlal, Purushottam Natthani, Ganga Das Natthani were the last purchasers from whom Umraolal Mahawar father of the complainants had purchased the portion of the land i.e. Khasra No. 190/1 area 16089 Sq. ft. Vide sale deed dtd. 1/8/1974 the land bearing Khasra No. 190/1 area 16089 Sqft. was purchased by Umraolal Mahawar from Seth Purushottam & Others. This dispute pertains to this portion of the land. Amrtilal Gujrati the original purchaser never purchased the property from power of attorney holder. The petitioner made an application for mutation and the said dispute has already been decided by the Board of Revenue vide its order dtd. 1/6/2015, passed inn Revenue Appeal Case No. RN/14/R/B- 121/528/2013 and the writ petition i.e. W.P.(227) No. 617/2015 is pending before this Hon'ble High Court. The judgment and decree dtd. 9/4/1976 passed by the Civil Court was not pertaining to the property in question and this property was not the subject matter and even the complainants were not party to the said Civil Suit. The petitioner with the collusion with the revenue officers obtained the order of mutation on the basis of the judgment and decree dtd. 9/4/1976 and has obtained the order of mutation on 24/8/2021. The petitioner has obtained the order of mutation without impleading the complainants and thereby has committed an offence of cheating. Khasra No. 190/1 renumbered as Khasra No. 190/6 was registered in the name of Vishnu Prasad and after the sale deed dtd. 25/1/1946 the said property was transferred in the name of Amritlal Gujarati. The partition dtd. 10/10/1953 has nothing to do with Khasra No. 190/6.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that, the respondent No. 2 and 3 have submitted the written complaint to the police authorities and on the basis of the said complaint the FIR bearing No. 618/2022 has been registered against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged inter alia on the allegations that, the present applicant has obtained the order of mutation dtd. 24/8/2021 from the Court of Additional Tehsildar Raipur by suppressing the factual aspects and by misinterpreting the judgment of the civil court and thereby has committed an offence of cheating. It has been alleged that, the complainant Nirmal Mahawar has lodged the FIR inter alia on the allegations that the complainant and his family members have purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 190 renumbered as Khasra No. 190/6 from Seth Purushottam Natthani and others and from Kishore Chand & Others. The sale deeds were executed by the registered owners. It has been further alleged that, the Board of Revenue vide its order dtd. 1/6/2015 has already passed an order which is binding on the accused. It has been alleged that the writ petition against the said order of the Board of Revenue is still pending. The accused again moved an application in the year 2020-21 and has obtained the order from the Court of Nayab Tehsildar on 24/8/2021 and got the order of mutation in respect of Khasra No. 190/6. The revenue officer in collusion with the accused has passed the order of mutation, even without impleading the complainant and his family members and by playing fraud has obtained the ex-parte order. It has been further alleged that their predecessor in title never purchase the property from power of attorney holder and this property have nothing to do with the partition dtd. 10/10/1953. From bare perusal of the allegations as made in the FIR, it appears that a pure civil dispute has been given colour of the criminal offence. Hence this petition.