KRISHNA KANAHIYA RAJHANS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Krishna Kanahiya Rajhans has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of his entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. C-72 of 2006 including the order dated 27.2.2008 by which the learned SDJM Gumla found a prima facie case under sections 119 /217/218/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the petitioner and the case is pending before the SDJM Gumla.

(2.) The complainant alleged in his complaint Case No. C-72 of 2006 that he had purchased a land appertaining to Khata No.4, plot No. 890 total area 2.70 acres of Mauza Gumla by two separate sale deeds viz No. 889/53 dated 30.5.1953 and another sale deed No. 1295 of 1953 dated 24.9.1953 from one Jageshwar Prasad Singh. After purchasing he filed a petition for mutation which was numbered as Mutation Case No. 78 R27/68-69 and the same was allowed in the office of Anchal Office, Gumla. It was alleged by the complainant that the rent receipts were jointly issued for the land along with other lands in the name of his father and when he applied for separate rent receipts in his name before the Circle Officer Gumla, he gathered that the petitioner ,who was the Circle Officer of Gumla, allowed the mutation in connivance with the vendee Monohar Kumar Singh in his favour acting beyond his jurisdiction, though the rent receipts were being issued from for the last 53 years. The detail of facts has been given impleading the different accused persons in this case.

(3.) Mr. Mohit Prakash, the learned counsel assisted by Suresh Kumar Advocate at the out set submitted that the petitioner is admittedly an Anchal Adhikari under whose signature and seal the mutation order was passed in favour of the applicant after following all the procedural rules. The SDJM without obtaining the sanction order under section 197 of Cr.P.C from the competent authority directed the summons to be issued against him. Complaint was filed by the complainant on 1.3.2006 and thereafter he applied seeking permission from the concerned department for criminal prosecution of the petitioner. In pursuance of the complaint the Addl. Collector,Gumla made inquiry in this regard and after inquiry he did not find that a suitable prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner as to recommend for sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C..However, it was advised that the complainant may move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. The Under Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms vide letter no.1300 dated 2.4.2007 under instruction flatly refused and communicated that no case was made out for taking action against the Circle Officer i.e. the petitioner herein. Mr. Mohit Kumar, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was a public servant under section 27 of the Indian Penal Code as well as "Judge" defined under section 19 of the said Code. The sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required for prosecution as the order of mutation passed by the petitioner cannot be deemed to be recorded in his personal capacity or for his personal gains. As a matter of fact, Circle Officer holds a power of Presiding Officer of his Civil Court as enshrined under section 25 of the Bihar Tenants' Holdings(Maintenance of Records) Act,1973 which speaks :-