HARISINGH DHURVEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first application filed by the applicant under Sec. 483 of the B.N.S.S for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.373/2024 dtd. 12/9/2024 registered at Police Station Vijaynagar District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Ss. 229, 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61, 198 BNS.

(2.) This is an application by the present applicant who is working as Tahsildar. It is contended by the counsel that an application for mutation came up before him which has been brought on record along with IA No.26052/2024 and upon receipt of the said application, the present applicant issued public notification which is at page no.9 dtd. 30/6/2023. The order-sheets were reduced in writing and after receiving the patwari prativedan, the order of mutation in favour of the applicant who has applied for mutation was passed. It is contended by the counsel that the application was moved by the applicant in the prescribed format and thus, there was illegality in the same. It is contended by the counsel that the order passed by the present applicant of mutation dtd. 8/8/2023 was assailed by one Shivcharan Pandey by filing an appeal under Sec. 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before Sub Divisional Officer, Adhartal Jabalpur. The SDO, Adhartal, Jablapur passed an order dtd. 9/9/2024 and while passing the said order, the SDO, set aside the order passed by the present applicant dtd. 8/8/2023 and issued direction for mutation of Shiv Charan Panday. While passing the said order, the SDO observed that on the basis of the forged documents and while conducting ex-parte proceedings, the order has been passed, and therefore, the proposal was made to the Collector to take appropriate action against all accused persons.

(3.) It is contended by the counsel that pursuant to an order of SDO, the offence in question has been registered against the present applicant. It contended by the counsel that firstly there is no violation of any statutory provision as is being sought to be alleged by the prosecution. It is contended by the counsel that the present applicant passed the order in the capacity of the Tahsildar exercising quasi judicial powers, and therefore, was entitled for the Judges Protection Act. It is contended by the counsel that there is a circular, which has been brought on record along with the application which is at page no.22, which stipulates that all the Revenue Officers, who exercise quasi judicial powers are protected under the Judges Protection Act and no action can be taken as regards in action which has been performed by them in performing of their official duties.