GOPIKA PRASAD TIWARI Vs. RAJMAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by the order dated 23/07/2012 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Criminal Revision No.182/2011, whereby learned Additional District Judge dismissed the revision of the applicant and confirmed the order dated 24/05/2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Satna in criminal complaint case no. unregistered/2011 (Gopika Prasad Mishra vs. Rajman Mishra and others).

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the applicant has filed a complaint under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 166 & 167 of Indian Penal Code, against the respondents before Judicial Magistrate First Class Satna, on the ground that the applicant and respondents no. 1 to 6 are resident of same village and respondents no. 7 & 8, being Patwari and Revenue Inspector at relevant time, were posted in village Nimaha Tehsil Rampurbaghelan District Satna whereas respondent no.9 was the Sarpanch of gram panchayat.

(3.) The applicant Gopika Prasad who is son of Ramkishore Mishra (since dead), in the aforesaid complaint averred that the land bearing khasra nos. 545, 546/2, 658, 661, 666, 667, 668a, 546/9 total area 26.36 acres belonged to Ramkishore, Manmodak, and Ramsuhavan. Respondents no. 1 to 6 with intention to grab the share of applicant in the aforesaid land, prepared and registered a forged partition deed no.1207 dated 29/06/1987 (Annexure A-9) by showing co-owners Manmodak and Ramsuhavan as dead. The respondents submitted aforesaid partition dead before Revenue Inspector. The Revenue Inspector (respondent no.8) recorded the names of respondents on the aforesaid land on the report of Patwari (respondent no.7). The shares of co-owners Manmodak and Ramsuhavan were also recorded in the names of respondents while at relevant time both were alive. The respondents no. 7 & 8, at the instance of respondents no.1 to 6 vide order dated 12/08/1988 (Annexure A/10) mutated the whole land in the names of respondents. Thus, the respondents grabbed the share of applicant.