ANMOL YADAV @ ANMOL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the first information report of Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 69 of 2013 registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Initially respondent No. 5 filed a complaint which was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. pursuant to which the FIR was registered and investigation was taken up. The informant has invariably stated that his agricultural land bearing khata no. 346/Ka (New) situated in Mouza Singaon falls under Kishanpur Anchal i.e. circle of Supaul District and its R.S. Khatian as well as chakbandi khatian stands in the joint names of his father late Maheshwar Pd. Singh and uncle Bhola Pd. Singh and Late Kameshwar Pd. Singh and its chakbandi khata is 287. Accordingly its jamabani is also running in their names. He has further alleged that he came to know on a rumour doing rounds that the accused persons were under a conspiracy to usurp his aforesaid land on the strength of papers forged at the Record room Saharsa and finally the accused nos. 1 and 2 brought the accused no. 6 in their collusion and forged a paper and got jamabandi of the land created on the basis of such forged papers in their names and favour by the accused nos. 4, 5 and 7 i.e. the writ petitioner and others. The further allegation is that on coming to know of it, he inquired about the genuineness of the cess-Re-evaluation Return, R.S. khatian of khata 346/chha (w) and Rent Reduction schedule prepared under section 112A of the B.T. Act and came to know that all the aforesaid papers were forged and they got jamabandi of the land created with the help of the accused nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 when he sought information in this regard form the said Record Room, he came to know that such certified copies were never issued from the record room. He further got a panchayat organised but for no gain and ultimately filed the complaint case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Revenue Clerk and hence, he could not have been prosecuted without obtaining sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short "the Code").