LAWS(P&H)-1998-11-104

ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 13, 1998
ASHOK KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 17 dated 16.5.1996 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(C) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings based thereupon qua petitioner Ashok Kumar S/o Budh Ram, Qanungo, Bhatinda.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as Qanungo in Tehsil Bhatinda in the year 1990. One Sh. Hardev Singh, since deceased, was posted as Naib Tehsildar. An application for correction of Khasra Girdawari was moved by one Atma Singh seeking the correction of Khasra No. 2848 in the area of Patti Mehna, Tehsil Bhatinda measuring about 80 Bighas. The said application, copy Annexure P1, which was addressed to the Tehsildar Bhatinda was entrusted to late Shri Hardev Singh, Naib Tehsildar for enquiry. The said application was subsequently marked to the petitioner for enquiring into and to take action as per the spot inspection. The petitioner visited the spot on 14.8.1990. Amrik Singh, Lambardar accompanied by Jeeta Singh and Atma Singh applicant were present at the time of the spot inspection. The petitioner found that Atma Singh was in cultivatory possession of 58 bighas and 10 biswas of the total area of 80 bighas of the land comprising khasra No. 2848 (Min). The petitioner submitted his report accordingly recommending that entry in Khasra Girdawari be made in favour of Atma Singh. The report was submitted on 14.8.1990. On the basis of this report, Khasra Girdawari was corrected in the name of Atma Singh under the orders of the Naib Tehsildar, late Shri Hardev Singh. It was mentioned that no change in the entry of the column of ownership of the land was recommended and made in the Khasra Girdawari. The ownership of the land remained as Shamlat. The entry in the column of cultivator was, however, made in favour of Atma Singh showing him as a co-sharer. One Niko D/o Pyare Lal was also shown in cultivating possession of 6 bighas of land of the aforesaid khasra number. Later on, Atma Singh filed civil suit No. 1403 of 19.10.1990 against Amrik Singh, Lambardar and other co-villagers seeking declaration to the effect that he was the owner and in possession of 58 bighas and 10 biswas of the aforesaid land comprising khasra No. 2848 (Min). The suit was decreed by Sub Judge, Bhatinda vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.1990. It was, however, contended that Gram Panchayat was not impleaded as a party in the said civil suit and Atma Singh was declared as the owner of the land by virtue of adverse possession. It is further alleged that the land in question was acquired by the Government and Atma Singh claimed compensation for the acquired land and also received the same. Some residents of Village Patti Mehna filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Bhatinda in a representative capacity on behalf of all the co-sharers of Shamlat land situated in Patti Mehna, for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, Bhatinda on 10.10.1990. It was alleged that the said decree had been obtained by paractising fraud on the Court by Atma Singh, plaintiff in collusion with Amrik Singh, Lambardar and also sought a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and all the persons whom they represented were the owners in possession of land. This civil suit is, however, pending for disposal. lt has been contended that after about six years the impugned FIR was registered on 16.5.1996 against the plaintiff alleging about his complicity regarding change in the entry of Khasra Girdawari in collusion with Atma Singh. This report was registered at the instance of Shri Kuldip Singh, DSP Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Bhatinda. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the impugned FIR on the ground that he conducted the enquiry, spot inspection and submitted his report in pursuance of orders passed by his superior officers and he did so in due discharge of his duty. He denied the allegations to the contrary made in the impugned FIR. It was also contended that the judgment and decree, copy Annexure P3, dated 10.10.1990 passed by Sub Judge, Bhatinda was under challenge in the civil suit which was pending before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. A plea of bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has also been taken that without taking the prior sanction of the competent authority the case could not be registered and proceeded against the petitioner. In the alternative the petitioner prayed for staying the proceedings in the criminal case pending the decision of the matter by the civil court of competent jurisdiction.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully perused the record of the case.