VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMA Vs. BINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No. 199/2010 of Balussery Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Section 294(b) and 353 of Indian Penal Code seeks to quash Annexure A1 F.I.R and subsequent proceedings. The petitioner is a first Grade Surveyor presently working in the office of the Re-Survey Superintendent, Sulthan Bathery. According to the petitioner he had purchased 21.3 cents of land in Survey No. 50/1 of Sivapuram Village as per Document No. 2616/2009 dated 8.6.09 of Sub Registry Office, Thamarassery Town. The petitioner thereafter submitted Annexure A2 application before the Village Officer, (the second respondent herein, namely V. Bindu) Sivapuram, Karimala for effecting mutation of the revenue register in his name so as to enable him to pay the land revenue. Along with the said application he submitted a copy of the registered sale deed in his favour as evidenced by the contents shown on Annexure A2 application. The Village Officer while receiving the application for mutation not only insisted on the production of the original sale deed but also prior title deed as well as revenue receipt. The endorsement made to that effect reads as follows:

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 9.3.2010 while the second respondent Smt. V. Bindu, the Village Officer, was approached by the petitioner with Annexure A2 application for effecting mutation, the Village Officer refused to act upon the application by insisting on the production of the original sale deed, prior title deed etc. in respect of the property and thereupon the petitioner became furious and shouted obscene words at the Village Officer and acted in such a manner as to prevent the Village Officer from discharging her official duty. Thereby the accused committed offences punishable under Section 257 and 353 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) There is no dispute that the petitioner had produced a copy of the registered sale deed in his favour. The maximum which the Village Officer could have insisted on was the production of the original sale deed. The Village Officer had no business to insist upon the production of the prior title deed. The Village Officer is not an adjudicating authority and she could not have acted as a Munsiff by insisting on the production of prior title deed, especially when there was no rival claim for mutation nor any objection by anybody to the request of the petitioner. The only duty of the Village Officer in such a contingency was to effect the mutation in case the applicant was found to be the assignee and thus the title holder of the property. The very fact that the Village Officer insisted on production of the prior title deed and prior tax receipt (which could not have been in favour of the petitioner/applicant) shows that the Village Officer was unnecessarily causing hurdles in the way of the petitioner. If the petitioner reacted violently to the unreasonable demand made by the Village Officer, it was quite natural. That could hardly form the basis for a criminal complaint. This prosecution was dishonestly launched with the sinister motive of silencing the petitioner whose only aim was to seek a mutation of the revenue register. I am satisfied that the F.I.R registered against the petitioner is nothing but clear abuse of power. It is alleged in ground 'C' of this petition that consequent on the registration of the F.I.R against the petitioner, he has been suspended from service. The petitioner has suffered adverse consequences because of the unreasonable demand made by the Village Officer, who is a public servant duty bound to serve the public. It is not known whether there was any other extravagance consideration behind the unjustified demand made by the Village Officer. The harassment of the petitioner should end here. There is no justification for allowing the matter to proceed beyond Annexure A1 F.I.R., which is accordingly quashed. This Criminal M.C is allowed as above.