BAKSHISINGH SAHEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications filed U/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. are being disposed of together. For, they arise out of same set of fact situation. The applicants seek quashing of F.I.R. dated 14.6.2004 and consequent proceedings initiated by Respondent No.4 at Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded, on the basis of which Crime No.128/2004 is registered against them for offence U/ss 420, 463, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

(2.) The Respondent No.4 (Yeshwant) lodged F.I.R. against the applicants and T.I.L.R., namely, Shri P.N.Zalke, alleging that they prepared false and collusive record purporting to indicate ownership of CTS No.2671 with applicant Bakshisingh. There is no dispute about the fact that complainant Yeshwant is owner of property bearing CTS No.2675. The applicant Bakshising owns land which originally bore S.No.11. According to the complainant, land S.No.11 was not divided at any point of time. He alleged that Bakshising, in collusion with the T.I.L.R. and other two officials - Amarsing Kamthekar and Mohd.Nawazkhan, falsely manipulated entries in the City Survey record to show that S.No.11 was divided into two parts. They falsely entered a part of CTS No.2675 owned by the complainant as CTS No.2671 showing that it was S.No.11/2 and originally a part of S.No.11. They attempted to grab the said property shown as CTS No.2671 by preparing forged, false and fabricated City Survey record. Thus, they attempted to divest him of a part of his property bearing CTS No.2675. The case of Bakshising, on the other hand, is that original S.No.11 was divided into two parts, namely S.No.11 and S.No.11/2 (present CTS No.2671). He would submit that the property bearing CTS No.2671 was never part and parcel of CTS No.2675 owned by the complainant. His case is that originally S.No.11 bore S.No.9/5. The ownership of his grand father for S.No.9/5 was judicially recognised by the High Court of Hyderabad in S.A.No.649/1366 F. (1946). He asserted that a tonch map was prepared in 1334 F. (1924 A.D.) wherein S.No.11/1 and S.No.11/2 have been separately shown and demarcated. Thus, according to applicant Bakshisingh, the Respondent No.4 filed a false and mischievous complaint with oblique intention to harass him and the Government officials. Consequently, he urged to quash the F.I.R. and the incidental proceedings arising therefrom.

(3.) The applicants - Amarsingh and another were the surveyors attached to the City Survey Office, Nanded. They would submit that false complaint is lodged by the Respondent No.4 with ulterior motive to grab a part of S.No.11 which is not owned by him. They would further submit that Sanad is issued in favour of applicant Bakshisingh (accused No.4) in respect of the property bearing CTS No.2671 as per the record available with the Office. They would submit that his predecessor s name was shown in the P.R. card and the Respondent No.4 (complainant - Yeshwant) was well aware of such a fact. They would further submit that they were not officiating in the City Survey Office, Nanded when the process of City Survey was initiated in 1976 till it was completed in 1979. They alleged that sanction to their prosecution is issued by Shri Sewa Jummaji Sontakke, Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, without application of mind and is illegal since previous sanction dated 6.5.2006 was issued by the then Deputy Director of Land Records only against other two employees by name Shri Choundekar and Shri Qadar. They would submit that they are not at all responsible for the entries in question and the charges levelled against them are unfounded. Consequently, both of them would submit that the Criminal prosecution against them would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, the application.