SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have field this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in M.Cr.C.No. 7246/2011 and M.Cr.C.No. 8479/2011 for quashing the F.I.R. registered at Crime No. 460/11 of Police Station Cant, District Guna (M.P.). The impugned F.I.R. has been registered on report submitted by Tehsildar, Guna, regarding mutation of name of Munnibai as Shantibai on the land of patta of which has been issued in the name of Imrat. Thereafter, Munnibai again representing herself as Shantibai obtained permission from the Collector, Guna, in Case No. 89/31 -21/2007 -2008 to sale the land to Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, who is petitioner in M.Cr.C.No. 7246/2011.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that Munnibai was wife of Raghunath, brother of Imrat. Raghunath died in the year 1999 and thereafter Shantibai wife of Imrat has also died in the year 2000. After death of Shantibai, Munnibai was living with Imrat, who died in the year 2002 -2003. After Munnibai started living with Imrat, she changed her name from Munnibai to Shantibai but the report lodged by the Tehsildar and an enquiry report submitted by the S.D.O., Guna, shows that Munnibai assumed herself as Shantibai. Since Munnibai has applied for permission to sale the land of Imrat to Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and executed the sale deed in his favour, later on, it cannot be said that Sanjeev Prakash Sharma Sanjeev Prakash Sharma was not knowing that Munnibai has impersonated herself as Shantibai. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Md. Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and another,, 2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 746) in which it has been held that in a sale deed executed by making a false document the accused being purchaser, being witness, scribe and stamp vendor, no offence under Sections 420,467, 471 and 504 of IPC is made out. Therefore, petitions are liable to be quashed. In the present case, Munnibai has impersonated as Shantibai without any proof of Imrat and got her name mutated and, thereafter, obtained permission for sale of land to Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, therefore, looking to the active role of Munnibai and permission for sale to Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, it cannot be said that petitioner Sanjeev Prakash Sharma was not having knowledge about Munnibai's impersonation. Therefore, the judgment cited by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the present case. In the present case, fraud has been played on the Revenue Authorities by/for petitioners. Therefore, the petitions, M.Cr.C.No. 7246/2011 and M.Cr.C.No. 8479/2011 are dismissed.