SURENDRA KUMAR TIWARI Vs. MUDRIKA PRASAD & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 31/07/04 passed by Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Mauganj, District Rewa, whereby learned JMFC took cognizance against the applicant and co-accused R.K. Yadav and Smt. Gaindua for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 218, 468, 471 of the IPC on the complaint of respondent No.1 Mudrika Prasad.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Mudrika Prasad filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mauganj, District Rewa averring that the land bearing survey No.292/01 area 2.33 hectare situated at village Raura, Tehsil Mauganj, District Rewa was in the joint ownership of his father Sukhram and his uncle Ramdulare, who died issueless. His uncle Ramdulare through a registered gift deed dated 07/01/1972 donated his share of that land to the complainant and his brother and since then the complainant and his brother are in the ownership and possession of the said land. Applicant, who was the Reader of the then Tehsildar, Tehsil Mauganj, District Rewa prepared forged unregistered sale deed dated 09/02/1983 in favour of his mother co-accused Smt. Gaindua and on the basis of said deed got the said land mutated in the name of his mother Smt. Gaindua. It is further alleged that the applicant being reader of Tehsildar by preparing forged order-sheet of Revenue Case No.142-A/06/1998-99 prepared a forged mutation order in the name of the then Tehsildar Mauganj, District Rewa and got the said land mutated in the name of his mother co-accused Gaindua. So the cognizance be taken against the applicant and other co-accused persons namely R.K. Yadav and Smt. Gaindua for the offence punishable under Section 166, 167, 169, 465, 466, 467, 471, 294, 427, 120-B & 506 of the IPC. On that learned JMFC recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and his witness Samula Baksh under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments passed the impugned order and observing that from the complaint prima facie offence under Section 420, 218, 468, 471 of the IPC is made out against the applicant and coaccused R.K. Yadav & Smt. Gaindua registered the complaint and also issued bailable warrant to secure their presence. Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant preferred this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged dispute is civil in nature and the complainant filed the complaint in order to pressurize the applicant to settle the civil dispute. Even otherwise the alleged offence is said to have been committed in a course of judicial proceeding, for which adequate remedy of appeal and revision is provided under the M.P. Land Revenue Code. However, despite that the complainant malafidely made a false allegation in order to pressurize the applicant to leave their valid claim over the disputed property. The evidence produced by the applicant is not sufficient to take cognizance of the offence against the applicant. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.