Savita Manoj Chaudhar vs The State Of Mah And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 7231 Bom

                                                1         Cr WP 1004 of 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 Criminal Writ Petition No. 1004 of 2009

     *       Savita w/o Manoj Chaudhar,
             Age 37 years,
             Occupation : Service,
             (Tahsildar Washi), Taluka Washi,
             District Osmanabad.                                 ..    Petitioner.

                      Versus

     1)      The State of Maharashtra
             Through the Police Station,
             Washi, Taluka Washi,
             District Osmanabad.

     2)      Santosh s/o Tukaram Kagade,
             Age 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture,
             R/o Golegaon, Taluka Washi,
             District Osmanabad.              .. Respondents.

                                  ----
     Shri. V.G. Mete, Advocate, for petitioner.
     Shri. S.J. Salgare, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
     respondent No.1.
     Shri. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
                                  ----

                                    Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
                                           S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

                                   Date     :       15 SEPTEMBER 2017

     JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.) :

1) The petition is filed for relief of quashing and

setting aside the order made by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Washi to police to make

2 Cr WP 1004 of 2009

investigation under section 156(3) of the Criminal

Procedure Code in M.A. No.72/2009 filed by the present

respondent No.2. Relief is also claimed for quashing of

the F.I.R. registered on the basis of the order made by the

Judicial Magistrate First Class as M-Case No.19/2009.

The crime is registered for offences punishable under

sections 166, 167, 463, 465, 471, 120-B, 34 etc. of the

Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and

others. Both the sides are heard.

2) One Santosh Kagade, respondent No.2, has

grievance that even when some order was made by Civil

Court in his favour, in a suit filed for partition, and when

he had 1/5th share in the property bearing Gat No.218

situated at village Gojwada, the property was sold by

defendant of that suit, Radhabai Kagade. It is his

grievance that on the basis of the sale deed executed by

Radhabai, order of mutation is made by the present

petitioner, Tahsildar of Washi. It is his contention that

even when the litigation was brought to the notice of the

present petitioner, he made order and thereby he

committed the offence under the aforesaid sections.

                                            3        Cr WP 1004 of 2009

     3)               The submissions made show that in the revenue

record land Gat No.218 was shown to be owned by

Radhabai. Even if the contention made by the original

complainant, that relief of partition was given in his

favour and it is declared by Civil Court that he has 1/5th

share in this property that circumstance can be

considered as against Radhabai in whose name the

property is shown in the revenue record. Admittedly she

executed registered sale deed in respect of this property

and the sale deed was presented by the purchaser for

entering his name in the revenue record. Relevant

provisions of sections 149 and 150 of Maharashtra Land

Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC) show the circumstances in

which mutation can be effected and the procedure for

effecting the mutation. The objections which can be

considered are also mentioned in these provisions.

4) In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the

duty imposed on the revenue authorities by MLRC and

after hearing both the sides and after considering the

aforesaid contentions of the original complainant the

order was made by the present petitioner. It can be said

4 Cr WP 1004 of 2009

that the original complainant has not lost anything and no

loss is actually caused to him by such order. This is

because if there is partition decree in his favour, there will

be equitable partition even in respect of the property

shown to be sold by Radhabai. The Tahsildar had acted in

discharge of her duty and the allegations against her are

of aforesaid nature.

5) In view of these circumstances and as

apparently sanction is necessary to prosecute her for

offences under sections 166, 167 etc. of the Indian Penal

Code, this Court holds that it will be abuse of process of

law if the further steps are taken as against present

petitioner in the aforesaid crime. In the result, the petition

is allowed. The order made by the Judicial Magistrate

First Class of directing investigation against present

petitioner and the F.I.R. registered to the extent, against

the present petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in those terms.

            Sd/-                                            Sd/-
     (S.M. GAVHANE, J.)                             (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
     rsl