ASHOK BHARGAV Vs. CHHOTELAL SARAVGI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., arising out of same Criminal Complaint Case No. 1580/2015, pending before JMFC, Budhar District Shahdol. Thus, it would be appropriate to decide the same by passing a common order.

(2.) According to case, complainant Chhote Lal Sarawagi has filed a complaint against respondents No. 2 to 4 contending that the respondents No. 2 and 3 are husband and wife, whereas respondent No. 4 was posted as Naiyab Tehsildar on the relevant time. Disputed land bearing Khasra No. 187 ad-measuring area 2.69 acre situated at Gram Budhar and the same is mentioned under the name of State on the revenue record of year 1958-59. He further contended that the land in question was registered in the name of State till the year 1993-94. In the year 1991-92 in khasra at column numbers 8,9,10 and column No. 1,2,3 accused/respondent No. 3 had made an effort to record the name of respondent No. 2. In this regard, some manipulation was made in the revenue record, which was committed by the then patwari. Further, in the year 1994-95, without taking any order of competent officer, in khasra, the name of respondent No. 2 was recorded by the patwari. It is also contended by the complainant that in the year 1988-89 in revenue case No 35-A/6A/88-89 order dated 11.09.1990, the then Tehsildar/ respondent No. 4 had passed an order to make a patta in the name of respondent No. 2 by referring the order of SDO, but during the year 1990 to 1996, the said land was recorded under the name of State, but in the year 1998, same was recorded in the name of respondent No. 2 in place of State, thus, it is alleged by the complainant that respondents No. 2 and 3 connivance with other co-accused persons had manipulated revenue record and registered the name of respondent No. 2 in respect to the disputed land. He has also stated that he had made an effort to get the certify copy of order dated 30.09.1986, passed by SDO, but same did not supply by the authority. In this regard, complainant had also sent a complaint letter to the Commissioner and Principle Secretory of revenue for inquiry of the matter, even then he could not get the justice from the authority.

(3.) After entering the case as unregistered case No. 56/14 the learned JMFC has recorded the statement of complainant under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. thereafter, the complaint case has been registered under complaint case no 1580/2015. Vide order sheet dated 01.10.2015, the learned JMFC has considered the averments of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1/complainant, came to this conclusion that the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474/120 B of IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioner, thus, same have been registered against them. Further, it is also mentioned by the JMFC that the then Collector, SDO, Tehsildar and Patwari have also been actively participated in the aforesaid act, thus, case for the offence under Section 120-B of IPC has also been registered against them. Vide order sheet dated 23.11.2015, on information furnished by the complainant regarding the details of concerning officials, the learned JMFC ordered to implead them and has also issued summons against them.