ASHOK KUMAR Vs. BALMUKUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 23-11-95 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 6/94, whereby the order dated 29-7-93 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh in Complaint Case No. 843/93 registering the case against the respondent No. 1 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC), the applicant has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) NO exhaustive statement of the facts are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition. In brief the case of the applicant, who filed private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, is that respondent Balmukund who is a Patwari, manipulated certain documents. According to the complaint, the applicant was given a Bhumiswami Patta on 15-9-1986 by the Gram Panchayat, Nayakhera of Khasra No. 959 measuring 50 x 50 sq. feet total area 2,500 sq. feet, which is equivalent to. 023 hectare, the total area of the said Khasra is. 798 hectare. The contention of the applicant in his complaint is that despite of the allotment in his favour, Naib Tehsildar Mr. Ashok Vyas allotted 0. 5 hectare of land in favour of one Shanti Devi Sahu, which also includes the area of the applicant. According to him, no notice was served to him. The remaining area which is. 298 hectare was encroached by one Urmila Singh and it is alleged that the said encroachment report was prepared by the respondent No. 1 Balmukund. It has also been putforth by the complainant that an application was made by Urmila Singh for the allotment of. 298 hectare of the land, as a result of which Naib Tehsildar Mr. Ashok Vyas issued a public notice regarding the said land and the allotment in favour of Urmila Singh was made for an area. 298 hectare.

(3.) ACCORDING to the applicant the total area of Khasra No. 959 is. 798 hectare which was allotted to Shanti Devi and the applicant was possessing the said land with the consent of Smt. Shanti Devi. The total area which was in favour of the applicant was. 500 hectare, while. 298 hectare was allotted to Smt. Urmila Singh. The applicant constructed a house on the land which was being possessed by him. In order to harass the applicant, the respondent No. 1 who is a Patwari, submitted a false report to the Naib Tehsildar Mr. Ashok Vyas, upon which a notice was given to him, and the proceedings were initiated by the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Ashok Vyas. It has been alleged that both these persons forged certain documents. In this manner, the complainant/applicant filed complaint before the Trial Court.