SANDEEP GOCHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Patwari, by way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 95/2015 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Burea, Jaipur for offence under Sec. 13 (1) (c) (d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ) and Sec. 120-B Penal Code to his extent.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and co-accused on the premise that they entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the same, the land in dispute was entered into the name of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar in the revenue record and on that basis co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar was able to obtain compensation for the land acquired which stood in his name in the revenue record. Further allegation is that although no tube-well was present in the agriculture land of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar but on the basis of a wrong report prepared by the petitioner in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar was able to obtain amount of compensation for acquisition of his land having tube-well upon it for the construction of national highway.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant time petitioner was working as Patwari only and he on the basis of order dated 1.11.2004 issued by the then Tehsildar Anta (District Baran) co-accused in this case, prepared proposal of Mutation No. 426 in favour of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar which was duly verified by Tehsildar himself on 4.11.2004 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner as Patwari was in any manner responsible for the opening of mutation wrongly in favour of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar. It was further submitted that the then Assistant Collector Anta (District Baran) vide letter dated 17.1.2004 directed Tehsildar, Anta to enter the land in dispute in the name of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar and in compliance of the same Tehsildar directed the petitioner vide his order dated 1.11.2004 to enter mutation of the land in dispute in favour of the co-accused and in compliance of the aforesaid order only petitioner as Patwari made a proposal for opening of mutation in favour of co-accused which was verified by the Tehsildar by his order dated 4.11.2004. It was submitted that as the mutation was proposed to be entered by the petitioner in compliance of order of a higher officer, no offence can be said to have been committed by him even prima facie. It was also submitted that it is not the case of prosecution that any demand and acceptance of bribe was made by the petitioner and in absence of the same, no offence under the provisions of the Act is disclosed against the petitioner.