DEEP KUMAR Vs. ANOOP AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This quashment petition filed in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. by one Deep Kumar is directed against the orders dated 30.04.2019 and 01.07.2019 passed by Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court").

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts, as projected by the petitioner-Deep Kumar in this petition, are that respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the trial Court for registration of an FIR against respondent Nos. 2 to 18 on the allegation that the aforesaid respondents being revenue officers/officials illegally prepared the revenue documents so as to facilitate execution of sale deeds by the petitioner and others qua the land owned and possessed by respondent No.1. In terms of order dated 30.04.2019, the trial Court in the first instance directed the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu to get the verification done by the S.D.M. South with regard to the allegations made against the revenue officers/officials and the private individuals named in the written complaint filed before the then S.S.P. Vigilance. The direction was to hold a local enquiry in presence of both the sides. In response to order dated 30.04.2019, the S.D.M. South filed a report, which was found to be incomplete by the trial Court. Accordingly, a fresh order was passed on 01.07.2019 and S.D.M. South was directed to proceed with the demarcation of the subject land to determine the factual position of the land vis-a-vis the revenue records and the authenticity of the rival claims of the parties. This appears to have been done by the trial court purportedly to take a decision with regard to initiate criminal action, as sought by respondent No.1. These are two orders, the petitioner is aggrieved of and has challenged in the instant petition.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party in the complaint filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos. 2 to 18. As is apparent from the array of parties in the complaint, certified copy whereof has been placed on record by the petitioner, all the respondents arrayed in the complaint are revenue officers/officials of different ranks. Interestingly, the private individuals for whose benefits the record has been allegedly manipulated by the revenue officials are not party to the complaint. Though, there is reference to the petitioner and three more persons, who claim to have purchased the subject land by virtue of four different sale deeds on the basis of fard intkhab issued by revenue officers in position from time to time.