RAMJI KUSHWAHA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24/05/2016 passed in S.T. No.369/2015 by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna whereby against applicants/accused persons charges for offence under sections 420/34, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC have been framed.

(2.) In brief, relevant facts of the case are that Kamlesh Tripathi as attorney of Aditya Mishra made a complaint before the District authority that the applicant no.1 and 2 are issuing back dated permission letter/certificates in the name of applicant no.3 to the large number of public for construction of houses on the land bearing Survey No.5/675/3, 5/675/2/1 and 5/675/1/1 situated in Gram Badkhar District Satna showing it government land. While actually it was not government land, it was private land of one Rajendra Mishra and others. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Satna without enquiring into the matter asked the police to register offence against the applicants stating that as the applicant no.3 had denied the fact that he has issued any such certificates and the applicant no.1 and 2 have been issuing forged certificates in his name and the police station Kulgawan District Satna registered a case at Crime no.893/2010 against the applicants. And after completing formalities of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicants. While during the investigation, the applicant no.1 has categorically stated that being Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Badkhar, he had issued the permissions/certificates for construction of houses on the government land.

(3.) The learned JMFC took cognizance against the applicants and committed the case to the Sessions Judge. On behalf of the applicants before framing of the charges it was objected that aforesaid land belong to the government and in this regard the Court of IIIrd Civil Judge Class-I, Satna has pronounced judgment in which the complainants Kamlesh Tripathi, Rajendra Mishra and Aditya Mishra were party and the judgment has been upheld by the first appellate court. Without disclosing this fact to the revenue authorities or police, false complaint was made and no alleged forged documents have been produced before the court, therefore, no case of any offence is made out against the applicants and they should be discharged. On the basis of documents produced by the prosecution with the charge sheet, learned lower court found that there is a prima facie case against the applicants for commission of the aforesaid offence by the applicants, hence charges were framed, which is under challenge in this petition.