RAJESH VERMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 388/2011 P.S. Ashok Nagar, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 166, 167, 169, 175, 218, 197, 217, 216, 466, 467, 468, 469 and 471 IPC.

(2.) The short facts of the case as contained in the petition are that petitioner is a RAS Officer and from 4.7.2004 to 2.5.2007, he was posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate- cum- Sub Divisional Officer, Badi Distt. Dholpur and he was exercising jurisdiction under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The case titled as Dushyant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan was pending for correction of revenue record since 1995 with the averments that land was in the name of Maharaja Shri Hemant Singh of Dholpur from Samvat 2019 to 2023. In the Samvat Year 2022-2023, when settlement took place and new Khasra numbers of the land were recorded, the land was by mistake entered as Siwai Chak inspite of the fact that settlement authorities are not having any power to change the type of the land from Khatedari to Siwai Chak. The present petitioner on 24.8.2005 decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff which order was challenged by plaintiff as well as by the State Government and revenue appellate authority vide its order dated 5.7.2006 had affirmed the order of the present petitioner. Thereafter, on 7.12.2011 respondents No. 2 and 3 out of mala fide motives filed a complaint on the ground that disputed land was pasture land and it cannot be converted in the name of the plaintiff and present petitioner has3 for wrongful gain, passed the impugned order dated 24.8.2005 on which FIR No. 388/2011 has been registered, hence this petition.

(3.) The contention of the present petitioner is that he was working as Sub Divisional Officer, Badi as Judge and his action is protected under the Judges Protection Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1985) and allegations levelled in the complaint do not constitute any offence. The FIR has been lodged for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 166, 167, 169, 175, 218, 197, 217, 216, 466, 467, 468, 469 and 471 IPC but none of the allegations stated in the FIR prima facie disclose ingredients for the above offences, nowhere it has been stated that any forged document has been prepared by the present petitioner or by any other person. No allegation of forgery in Zamabandi or revenue record has been alleged, genuineness of the judgment has been assessed by the revenue appellate authority and it was confirmed, the present petitioner has not misused his position, the FIR is activated with malice, hence be quashed. The revenue appellate authority has passed the order on 5.7.2006 against which no further remedy has been availed by the State Government and till now, nobody has challenged the order even after lapse of more than seven years. Complainant has no locus standi in the matter and only with malafides, the false FIR has been lodged. Per contra, the contention of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that present petitioner was not having any power to order as regards the pasture land, he acted without jurisdiction with conspiracy with other accused persons, court below has ordered investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which is an interlocutory order, hence cannot be challenged. Section 77 IPC protects only the acts done under good faith and when present petitioner was not acted in good faith, he could not claim the protection of Act of 1985. His further contention is that they have also applied to book the present petitioner under Section 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as he has abused his post as public servant and no case for quashing of the FIR is made out.