This order quashed an FIR against a patwari accused of fraud regarding land record alterations. The Court held that absent proof of criminal intent or malafide, mere errors in official duty do not incur criminal liability.
The FIR No.115/2021 and proceedings initiated thereunder are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 199/2022
Raju Singh Chauhan S/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Village Post Siriyari, Tehsil Raipur, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Patwari Patwar Circle Ranawas, Teh. Marwar Junction, Dist. Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Moti Singh |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia |
| Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit,P.P. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/11/2022
The instant Misc. Petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.115/2021 registered at the Police Station Raipur, District Pali for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
The brief facts of the Report bearing FIR No. 0115/2021 lodged at the behest of the respondent No.2 Sh. Rajeshwar Singh are that the accused-petitioner was a patwari posted at Jhala ki chowki, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali, wherein the petitioner purchased a barani land bearing Khasra No. 1319/77 measuring 5.15 bigha through a registered sale deed. The petitioner has filed for the mutation of the said land in the name of the respondent No. 2 and modification has been made in revenue trace map
(2 of 4)
[CRLMP-199/2022]
according to the possession of land by the complainant. In the trace map prepared by the government, the petitioner, who was the patwari of that area at that time, had altered the original kharsa No. 1319/77 allotted to the respondent No. 2 with Ill intention which was located near kharsa No. 1319/1681, and instead, allotted kharsa No. 1319/1703 and kharsa No.1319/1704 to complainant. During covid lock-down, the petitioner got to know that an unknown khatedar, in connivance with the patwari, Jhala ki chowk, conspired to give illegal benefits to other khatedars by making alterations in the trace map and the said land of the complainant was cordoned off by the khatedars.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the bare perusal of the FIR, it can be ascertained that a false case with an ulterior motive has been lodged against the petitioner. He submits that the complainant has not opted for the statutory remedy available to him which was to file an application for correction in the map before Land Record Officer cum Sub-Divisional officer which should have been done at the first instance. He submits that before demarcation of land, the petitioner himself visited the land in question with the Inspector of Land Records and after verification of the possession of the khatedar by the Inspector of Land Revenue, demarcation has been made. He further submits that the petitioner has followed the provisions of the Land Record Rules, 1957 for the demarcation of the above mentioned land in question. He submits that the survey has been conducted in the supervision of the Inspector of Land Revenue and the Tarmim has been approved by the Inspector himself.
(3 of 4)
[CRLMP-199/2022]
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal
Miscellaneous Petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor. Perused the material available on record more particularly the averments made by the counsels and the FIR impugned.
What is emanating from the material available on record is that the petitioner was a patwari in revenue department; he was under an obligation to comply with the direction of government to make appropriate, separate demarcation of the land of khatedar. He made the necessary endorsement on the basis of the certified copy of the ‘lattha’ trace/map issued by the patwari on 14.06.2008. The demarcation was done by him strictly in accordance with law and rules prevailing in the matter; neither there was any criminal intent nor the act was done with a malafide intention before meeting the necessary requirement of endorsement regarding correction of entry in map/demarcating line. He visited the land in question along with Inspector of Land Records. The Land Records Inspector verified the possession of khatedar and thereafter, in a routine practice, he made the appropriate demarcation of land. Assuming for a moment that the correction has not been made properly, the aggrieved party has a remedy to file an application for correction in the map before the office of Land Record Officer cum Sub-Divisional officer.
Suffice it would to be to say that in the event any entry has been made wrongly, the affected party may take the course of law for redressal of his grievances. This court is of the firm opinion that simply making an error in doing work while discharging the
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-199/2022]
official duty, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the erring officer unless it is shown that the officer was having a criminal intent. There is no whisper regarding malafide intention of the accused petitioner, thus, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of investigation in FIR impugned against the petitioner would surely amount to an abuse of process of law and therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the Misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.115/2021 registered at the Police Station Raipur, District Pali for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
Accordingly, the misc. petition stands disposed of.
The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
26-Anshul/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the continuation of investigation in the FIR against a patwari amounts to an abuse of process of law given the absence of criminal intent.
Whether the errors committed by a government officer in discharge of official duty attract criminal liability.
Whether the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed to secure the ends of justice.
Raju Singh Chauhan
State Of Rajasthan
Rajeshwar Singh
Farjand Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
