SURJIT SINGH BHATIA Vs. MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is a Crl. Misc Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 402 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner who is a retired Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Mohali whereby he has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 20.12.1995 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar declining to recall the order dated 22.1.1993 summoning him for trial. He has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 22.1.1993 summoning him for trial.

(2.) FACTS necessary for appreciation of this prayer of the petitioner are as follows :- Mehar Singh son of Sarwan Singh instituted complaint under Sections 468, 471 and 466 IPC in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar against Nirmal Singh, Jarnail Singh, Sulkhan Singh (Patwari), Gurbax Singh, Field Kanungo and the present petitioner Surjit Singh Bhatia, Assistant Collector Second Grade, Mohali on the allegations that Nirmal Singh filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) for changing path in village Dhoomchheri. He had impleaded Jarnail Singh as one of the respondents. Nirmal Singh and other proprietors of the village had been appearing before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Mohali who dismissed the application on 7.9.1983. According to Mehar Singh, Nirmal Singh and Jarnail Singh joined hands and procured a different order on 8.9.1983 by deceiving the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings in the absence of the villagers and Mehar Singh and case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for implementation of the order dated 8.9.1983. Consolidation Officer summoned Nirmal Singh time and again to hear him in the wake of remand order but he did not appear and the Consolidation Officer dismissed the remand case on 3.7.1984. Thereafter, Nirmal Singh and Jarnail Singh without requesting the Consolidation Officer or the Director joined hands with the Kanungo, Patwari and A.C.O. and got mutation No. 959 entered in their name in the absence of the parties. The accused ante-dated mutation entry as of 8.4.1992 and it was shown that mutation was sanctioned on 9.4.1992 though the relevant documents were not with them. According to Mehar Singh, all the accused committed forgery in the revenue record and prepared false entry and false mutation showing the new path without any authority and without any order. Vide order dated 22.1.1993 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, accused were summoned for trial.

(3.) IN support of his prayer for the quashing of the complaint, the order summoning him passed on 22.1.1993 and the order dated 20.12.1995 refusing to recall the summoning order, it is averred by the petitioner that there was a dispute between Mehar Singh, Nirmal Singh, Jarnail Singh and others and the Consolidation Officer allowed path from the joint boundary wall of Kila No. 22/10, 11, 22/2, 9, 12 west. Nirmal Singh filed appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer who vide order dated 22.6.1981 set aside the order of Consolidation Officer and allowed the new path. Annexure P1 is the order passed by the Settlement Officer dated 22.6.1981. Aggrieved from order dated 22.6.1981, Annexure P1, Nirmal Singh filed further appeal to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings under Section 42 of the said Act. Additional Director vide order dated 8.9.1983 remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer saying that path be widened from 2 karams to 4 karams and the case be decided after hearing both the parties. Annexure P2 is the said order passed by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings dated 8.9.1983. Vide order dated 3.7.1984, Consolidation Officer dismissed the case of Nirmal Singh in default because of his absence. After the dismissal of the case of Nirmal Singh, the path remained as it was. Mehar Singh got the mutation effected in his favour from the Naib Tehsildar in the revenue record on the basis of the order of the Settlement Officer which had been set aside by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings vide order dated 8.9.1983. Nirmal Singh and others approached the officials of the Consolidation Department and brought to their notice that Mehar Singh had got mutation in his favour on the basis of the order of the Settlement Officer on 23.7.1990 vide mutation No. 904 which had been set aside by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings vide order dated 8.9.1983. Order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings was also brought to their notice. Record of village was called for on 8.4.1992 which was submitted by the then Patwari and after perusing the order dated 8.9.1983 of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and the decision of the Consolidation Officer dated 3.7.1984, the order of the Revenue Tehsildar was set aside and the original numbers were entered. Case was prepared by Sulkhan Singh on 8.4.1992 and he (petitioner) approved the case on 9.4.1992. Mehar Singh filed petition before Director, Land Records exercising the powers under Section 42 of the Act saying that the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings had dismissed the petition of Nirmal Singh under Section 42 of the said Act on 7.9.1982 but on 8.9.1983, the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings had remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for widening the path from 2 karams to 4 karams and it was prayed that earlier order dated 7.9.1983 be restored and the order dated 8.9.1983 be quashed. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings vide order dated 4.2.1992 dismissed the petition on the ground that Mehar Singh had no locus standi and the appeal was time barred and also the order dated 8.9.1983 had not been given effect in Annexure P3 is the copy of the order dated 4.9.1993. According to the petitioner he was entitled to the protection of Judicial Officers Protection Act as it was a judicial act which he performed. Prior sanction as envisaged by Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required to prosecute him. Compliance of the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was also a must. Orders passed by the officers of the Consolidation Department were required to be implemented within 3 months of the date of receipt of the order in view of the instructions issued by the Department Annexure P6. In this case the record was called and was received on 8.4.1992 and mutation was sanctioned on 9.4.1992.