Gujarat High Court
Galabhai Dalabhai Bariya vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2023
Bench: M. R. Mengdey
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2969/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2969 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
GALABHAI DALABHAI BARIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR J V DAVE, ADVOCATE FOR
MR HARDIK A DAVE(3764) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 04/08/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant -
original accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2969/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2023
undefined
being I.C.R.No.99 of 2013 registered with Limbdi Police Station,
Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 465,
467, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (herein
after referred to as the "IPC").
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that at
the relevant time, present applicant was working as a Deputy
Mamlatdar (Revenue) at Limbdi. The accused no.1 had made an
application for mutating his name in the revenue record qua the
land in question. As and when an affidavit was affirmed before
the Executive Magistrate, the name of accused no.1 came to be
mutated in the revenue record after following the necessary
procedure and the said entry was subsequently certified. It was
the duty of present applicant as a Deputy Mamlatdar to mutate
the name in the revenue record on the basis of the documents
produced in support of the application. It was not duty of the
applicant to verify the genuineness of the documents produced
on record. Thus, the applicant had diligently performed his duty
in mutating the entry in question. It was not the duty of the
present applicant to verify as to whether the contents of the
application on affidavit were correct or not. Therefore, present
applicant cannot be said to have committed any offence. He,
therefore, submitted to allow the present application.
3. Learned APP, relying upon affidavit-in-reply filed by one
K.D.Solanki, Mamlatdar, Limbdi, submitted that when the
documents were presented before the concerned Deputy
Mamlatdar, it was already attested and authenticated by the
Government Officers. The affidavit, which was submitted before
the concerned Deputy Mamlatdar was attested by the Executive
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2969/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2023
undefined
Magistrate and the Pedigree Certificate, which was submitted
before the Deputy Mamlatdar was also authenticated and
attested by the Talati Cum Mantri. On the basis of these
documents, the present applicant had made an entry in
question. She, therefore, submitted to pass appropriate order in
the present application.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
material on record. As per case of prosecution, on 20.05.2005,
one Kiritkumar Popatbhai Pathak has stated on affidavit before
the Executive Magistrate that Parshottambhai Kalyanjibhai had
expired 30 years back leaving behind the only heir Karshan
Parshottambhai. Virjibhai Karsanbhai was son of Karshanbhai
Parshottambhai. Poptabhai Virjibhai was son of Virjibhai
Karshanbhai and the said Kiritkumar Popatbhai Pathak was the
son of Popatbhai Virjibhai. It was further stated in the affidavit
that the said Kiritkumar Popatbhai Pathak had no other brother
or sister and his mother had expired long back. It was, therefore,
submitted to enter his name as an heir and legal representative
as regard the land bearing Survey No.126 situated at
Village:Ghagratiya. Along with the said affidavit, genealogical
tree certified by the Talati Cum Mantri was also produced. On
the basis of the said affidavit and the relevant documents, Entry
No.809 was mutated in the revenue record on 08.05.2005 by the
present applicant. The said entry was also certified on
09.11.2005. The said land was subsequently sold by said
Kiritkumar Popatbhai Pathak to one Savjibhai Jivrajbhai Patel
by registered sale-deed. The entry in that regard was also
recorded in the revenue record. Subsequently, it came to the
notice of the revenue authorities that the said Kiritkumar
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2969/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2023
undefined
Popatbhai Pathak by tendering false affidavit and false
genealogical tree, got entered his name in the revenue record as
an heir and legal representative of Parshottambhai Kalayanji
Pathak. Therefore, the present FIR came to be lodged, wherein
the present applicant was also arraigned as an accused.
5. In present application, K.D.Solanki, Mamlatdar, Limbdi
has filed an affidavit-in-reply, wherein it is stated as under:-
"3. It is humbly submitted that the applicant herin was serving
as a Deputy Mamlatdar (E-Dhara Centre) at Limdi where the
accused no.1 had applied for mutating his name in the revenue
record. It is further submitted that the Deputy Mamlatdar is
duty bound to verify all the documents which are being
submitted by any of the candidate for mutation of entry and
before uploading it to E-Dhara.
4. It is humbly submitted that herein present case, when the
document were presented before the concerned Deputy
Mamlatdar, it was already attested and authenticated by the
government officers. It is further submitted that the affidavit,
which was submitted before the concerned Deputy Mamlatdar
was attested by Executive Magistrate and the pedigree
certificate, which was submitted before the Deputy Mamlatdar
for mutation in revenue record, was authenticated and attested
by the Talati cum Mantri.
5. It is humbly submitted that when the documents were
already verified by the concerned government officers, the
Deputy Mamlatdar would definitely believe that the documents
are authentic and hence, they are not required to be verified and
hence, it was uploaded without verification on the E-Dhara and
the entry got mutated."
6. Thus, as per the affidavit filed by Mamlatdar, it appears
that it was not the duty of present applicant to verify the
genuineness of the affidavit and other documents, as the same
had already been verified by the other government authorities
i.e. Executive Magistrate and Talati cum Mantri. The present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2969/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2023
undefined
applicant acting as a Deputy Mamlatdar at the relevant time
appears to have acted in due diligence and performed his duty as
per the law. For the sake of arguments even if it is accepted that
the applicant was duty bound to verify the veracity of the
documents on the basis of which mutation entry was sought to
be made, the failure on the part of the present applicant in doing
so can at best be termed as negligence and there appears no
criminal intention on the part of the present applicant nor it is
the case of prosecution.
7. Under the circumstances, the present application is
allowed. The impugned FIR being I.C.R.No.99 of 2013 registered
with Limbdi Police Station, Surendranagar for the offence
punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B)
of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising
out of the aforesaid F.I.R are hereby quashed and set aside qua
the present applicant.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
GIRISH
