RITU BHALLA Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition at hand, the petitioner makes a prayer for the quashing of FIR No.43 of 28.05.2010 registered at Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P., besides also she makes a prayer for quashing of order of 14.08.2014 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh, whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking therein a relief for hers standing discharged qua the offences embodied in the FIR aforesaid.

(2.) The accused/petitioner as depicted by Annexure P-4, annexure whereof comprised the sale deed executed by her with One Shri Belva qua hence hers acquiring title qua the land displayed therein. Uncontrovertedly, the petitioner/accused is a non agriculturist. She was statutorily barred to executed a sale deed with the aliener/vendor of Annexure P-4 also was barred to obtain its registration from the competent registering officer unless prior thereto she held a valid permission granted for the purpose aforesaid by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Apparently, prior to hers executing Annexure P-4 with Shri Belva besides before hers presenting it for registration before the registering authority concerned nor also at the time when Annexure P-4 stood accepted for registration, she did not hold any valid permission qua the purpose aforesaid accorded by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. She on the anvil of her mother holding agricultural land within the State of Himachal Pradesh, staked thereupon a claim of hers holding a capacity of an agriculturist also hence of hers being not a non-agriculturist qua the latter category alone a statutory bar was attractable against him/hers executing a sale deed qua land located in Himachal Pradesh besides also rendered attractable the statutory bar against hers obtaining its registration from the competent registering authority unless preceding thereto she/he obtains from the government of Himachal Pradesh a valid permission for effectuation of a lawful alienation of land in her/his favour. Subsequent to hers obtaining title to land embodied in khasra numbers 151 on hers successfully completing the execution of a sale deed inter se her and her vendor, execution whereof stood succeeded by its standing accepted for registration by the registering authority concerned, an inquiry as held/conducted by the Revenue Agency concerned unraveled of the agriculturist certificate appended with the sale deed by the petitioner/accused in portrayal of hers holding the capacity of an agriculturist holding a false recital therein qua her mother Sudarshana Bhataia holding as owner agricultural land within the territorial limits of Himachal Pradesh. Also a communication stood addressed by the Revenue Agency concerned to the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned for registering a case against the petitioner/accused. Consequently, FIR no. 43 of 28.05.2010 stood registered against the petitioner/accused embodying therein commission of offences by the accused constituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC and Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy Land Refroms Act.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner has canvassed before this Court of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh, declining the prayer of the petitioner herein made before him for discharging her for the offences constituted in the FIR, is legally infirm given his remaining unmindful of the trite fact of the sale deed executed inter se the accused/petitioner qua the land embodied therein with one Belwa standing cancelled. He hence espouses of the swinging into motion of the criminal machinery suffering from lack of jurisdiction. However, the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused is bereft of any legal succor as emanable from the trite fact of even if the apposite sale deed suffering the ill fate of its standing cancelled would not forestall the swinging into action of the criminal machinery for subjecting the accused/petitioner for prosecution qua hers circumventing the statutory bar constituted in the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act against hers obtaining lawful title qua land located within the territorial jurisdiction of State of H.P. under a registered deed of conveyance unless she prior thereto obtains a lawful permission for the relevant purpose from the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The effect of any order of cancellation of the apposite sale deed also would not relieve her from her amenability for prosecution for relying upon a forged agriculturist certificate for obtaining title qua land located within the territorial limits of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to suffer the fate of its standing discountenanced by this Court.