BHOLA RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case in which malpractices and illegal acts of the Ministerial staffs of the Civil Courts, Motihari, East Cham -paran, brought into notice of this Court. The petitioner, who was party in Partition Suit No. 162 of 1992, filed a complaint beihg Complaint Case No. C -1383 of 1993 against Respondent Nos. 5 to 18 who are private parties and employees of the Civil Court rrlaking allegations of committing offences punishable under Secions 420, 467, 408, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE petitioner 's case, inter alia, is and that partition suit was filed being Partition ' Suit No. 162 of 1992 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Motihari, which eventually ended in compromise and final decree was prepared on 16.2.1966. it is alleged that the certified copy of the compromise decree was obtained on 2&2.1966 and on the basis of the order passed on compromise petition , both the parties came in possession of their respective share. As per the compromise, Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 who are accused In complaint got share of 5 bighas 6 kathas and 19 dhurs, whereas the complainant and others got 13 bighas 18 kathas and 1 dhur of land in their share. It is further alleged that of the lands allotted to the complainant, he sold 7.15 kathas of land to seven different persons and vendees were given possession but accused nos. 1 to 5 started interfering with the possession by making unlawful assembly and at .the intervention of the neighbours a Panchaiti was held in which accused persons named in the complaint petition exhibited certified copy of final decree of partition suit before the panches which suggested that the accused persons were given share of 8 bighas 8 kathas and 17 dhurs whereas actually they were given share of 5 bighas, 6 kathas and 18 dhurs of land. Since the complainant possessed certified copies of 1966 and 1991, he smelt some foul play. The complainant, therefore, made enquiry in the Civil Court and came, to know that accused persons Nos. 1 to 5 to the complaint petition filed requisite for obtaining certified copy of final decree on 18.9.1933 and it was found that the accused persons in connivance with the employees of the Civil court got interpolation and wrong entry in the compromise petition and the compromise decree. The complainant alleged to have brought this fact to the notice of the Registrar, Civil Court by filing representation on 25.9.1993 and upon whose Order the relevant papers were sealed.

(3.) IN this case, on 4.11.1997 the parties were heard and notices were issued to Respondent nos. 5 to 18. When the case was listed before me on 22.7.1998 I passed order directing the District and Sessions, East Champaran, Motihari to submit a detail report on the allegations made by the petitioner in this writ application. I further directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to submit a report as to why the complaint filled by the petitioner is still pending. Pursuant to that order both the District and Sessions Judge, Motihari and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Incharge submitted their reports. From perusal of the report of the District and Sessions Judge it appears that the District Judge reiterated the statements made by the complainant to the effect that the Registrar made a thorough enquiry and found that there were manipulations in the record at several places and the employees of the Civil Court committed offences during the discharge of their official duty. However, the District Judge Stated in reply to the letter of the Judicial , Magistrate that in the matter of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the District Judge does not come in the picture. The District Judge further stated that the Judicial Magistrate referred the matter to him in the administrative side and not in the judicial forum and, therefore, it was not desirable for him to give him definite guidelines. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Incharge in his report reiterated the same facts. According to him, since the accused persons are employees of the Civil Court, the matter was referred to the District Judge for according sanction.