P.R. Nirmal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

2. Rajnish Sharma S/o Late Alopi Prasad Sharma, R/o B8/6, Mahanda Nagar, Bhartiya Gyanpeeth, School Road, Ujjain, District-Ujjain (M.P.) (Complainant)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate. : For Respondent/State Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate.

¶13

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: 2025.03.03 10:26:53 +0530

¶14

2

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

27.02.2025

¶18

1. Heard Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State.

¶19

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶20

“ (a) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow

¶21

the instant petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶22

(b) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 334 of 2021 dated 25.06.2021 registered at Police Station, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC against the petitioner.

¶23

(c) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned entire charge-sheet being final report No. 622 of 2021 dated 18.12.2021 filed by the Police Station, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶24

3

¶25

before the learned Additional Chief Magistrate, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Annexure P/1) for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC against the petitioner.

¶26

(d) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 in Criminal Case No. 1088 of 2021 and entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 1088 of 2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh, District Rajanandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC, so far against the petitioner (Annexure P/2), in the interest of justice.

¶27

(e) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit, may kindly be granted in favour of petitioner, in the interest of justice. ”

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 27.05.2021, the complainant/respondent No. 2 had lodged complaint at Police Station, Dongargarh, alleging therein that the land bearing Sheet No. 7 Plot No.212/5 admeasuring area 4384 sq.ft. situated at Ward No. 9, Dongargarh was recorded in the name of Bhoulal Mahule. The coaccused, namely, Rajeev Mahule by way of forgery got the said land mutated in his name by order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Tahsildar, Dongargarh (petitioner) in Revenue Case No. 25-A/6/2006-07, against which, an appeal was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dongargarh and vide order dated 24.09.2009 the S.D.O. has set aside the

¶29

4

¶30

mutation order dated 28.02.2007. He also submits that the allegation against the present petitioner is that at the relevant point of time, he was working as Tahsildar, Dongargarh in the year 2007 and during this period, the co-accused Rajeev Mahule filed an application for mutation of subject land and on the basis of records available with the petitioner, the petitioner has proceeded in the mutation application and after completion of necessary formalities and procedure, the petitioner passed an order for mutation duly in accordance with law. On the basis of above report, the offences under Section 420, 34 of the IPC have been registered against the accused person including present petitioner in Crime No. 334/2021. After completion of investigation, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Dongargarh has submitted final report before the learned JMFC, Dongargarh on 18.12.2021, upon which, the Criminal Case No. 1088 of 2021 has been registered before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶31

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2005, the co-accused Rajeev Mahule filed an application under Section 110 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘Act of 1959’) for recording the land bearing Khasra No. 2124/5 admeasuring area 4384 sq.ft. in his name on account of death of Bhaulal, who was the grandfather and on the basis of said application, the then Tahsildar, Dongargarh registered the Case No. 95-A/6-2006-07. During pendency of said proceedings, the petitioner was transferred at Tahsil Office, Dongargarh and on the basis the documents filed by the co-accused Rajeev Mahule, after recording the statement of the witnesses and further considering the consent given by the complainant and other co-share

¶32

5

¶33

holder, the subject land was mutated in the name of Rajeev Mahule by order dated 28.09.2007. He would submit that against the order dated 28.09.2007, one Smt. Vimla Mahule filed an appeal before the S.D.O., Dongargarh bearing Appeal Case No. 43-A-6/2007-08 and vide order dated 24.09.2009 the S.D.O. has set-aside the order dated 28.09.2007 and directed to mutate the subject land in the name of legal heirs of deceased Bhaulal.

¶34

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Tahsildar and he has passed order for mutation on the basis of report of Patwari and revenue records. Upon completion of age of superannuation, the petitioner has been retired from service with effect from 31.10.2017. He further states if the case of prosecution is taken as it is in its face value, then also the alleged offences are not made out against the present petitioner, as the present petitioner was performed his official duties and he has never prepared any forged or fabricated documents. The impugned prosecution of petitioner is utter abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. On 14.10.2024, the State Government has issued an order, whereby directed all the Commissioners and Collectors of State of Chhattisgarh not to initiate any prosecution against the Revenue Officers, who have granted protection under Judicial Officer Protection Act, 1850.

¶35

6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner had filed CRMP No. 1159 of 2021 before this Court for quashing the impugned FIR No. 334/2021 and during pendency of the said petition, the investigation was conducted and the challan was submitted before the learned JMFC, Dongargarh and the concerned trial

¶36

6

¶37

Court was registered the criminal case against the petitioner, therefore, the said petition (CRMP No. 1159 of 2021) was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by order dated 13.01.2025 with liberty to file duly constituted petition. Thereafter, the the petitioner had filed CRMP No. 582/2025, which was listed on 17.02.2025 before this Court. However, due to an inadvertent error in the pleadings, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh. Accordingly, this petition is being filed.

¶38

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was Tahsildar and acted as revenue officer within the meaning of Sections 11 and 31 of the Act of 1959, and therefore, his order deemed to an order of the revenue Court and order passed in quasi-judicial capacity was judicially appealable under Section 44(1) of the Act of 1959, as such, he cannot be subjected to be criminal prosecution as order passed in quasi-judicial capacity in view of provisions contained in Section 2 read with Section 3 of the Provisions under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (for short, ‘Act of 1985’) and there is no evidence on record of collusion with other accused persons, as such, the prosecution launched against the petitioner for aforesaid offence is clearly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principle of law in this regard, as such, initiation of prosecution by registering the FIR is bad in law. Hence, the FIR, charge-sheet and entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶39

8. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of

¶40

7

¶41

investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the trial is in progress.

¶42

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶43

10. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a chargesheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶44

11. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offences the trial has been initiated against the petitioner.

¶45

12. Further, in the present case, from the perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the present petitioner, in collusion with co-accused, namely, Rajeev Mahule, has been charged with conspiring to mutate the disputed land in his name in the revenue records. The present petitioner, vide order dated 28.02.2007, in Case No. 251/6/2006-2007, deleted the name of Bhoulal Prayag Mistri and entered the name of Rajeev Mahule

¶46

8

¶47

prima facie , it appears that the Tehsildar passed the aforementioned order while discharging his official duties. Therefore, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. Thus, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet as well as entire criminal proceedings.

¶48

13. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 334 of 2021 dated 25.06.2021, and the charge-sheet bearing No. 622 of 2021 dated 18.12.2021 filed by the Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of the IPC and the consequential criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 1088 of 2021 pending before the trial Court, as such, this petition is dismissed .

¶49

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶50

Brijmohan

P.R. Nirmal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R. Nirmal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (in Person) Vs Reserve Bank of India

Prabhakar Khobragadhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. P. Rajshekhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Natwar Beriwal Vs Madanlal Agrawal

Swaroop B. @ Bhagwan Swaroop Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh