Keran Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1319 MP

                                   1                              MCRC-17773-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC-17773-2021
                   (KERAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

1
Gwalior, Dated : 06-04-2021
      Shri D.S. Tomar with Shri S.K. Mishra, Counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Ravi Vallabh Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.

Shri S.B. Lodhi, Counsel for complainant.

Heard on I.A. No. 11134/2021 seeking permission to assist Public Prosecutor. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed. Shri Suresh Agarwal and Shri S.B. Lodhi, Advocate are permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor.

Case Diary is available.

This First Application under Section 438 of CrPC has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

T he applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 59/ 2021 registered at Police Station Khaniyadana District Shivpuri for offence punishable under Sections 376, 456 and 506 of IPC.

It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely

implicated. Infact, Shobharam who was brother of the applicant was murdered and after his death, the prosecutrix contracted second marriage and is residing with one Kallu. Shobharam executed a "Will" in favour of Saurabh Singh who is nephew of Shobharam. After the death of Shobharam, the prosecutrix filed an application for mutation of her name in the revenue records in respect of the agricultural land owned by Shobharam. The said application was allowed. However, Saurabh filed an appeal before the Court of SDO (Revenue) Pichore Distt. Shivpuri which has been allowed by order dated 17.02.2021 passed in Case No. 38/Appeal/2020-21 and since the applicant had acted impartially and had neither supported Saurabh nor the prosecutrix, therefore false allegation of rape has been leveled.

Per Contra, the application is opposed by the State Counsel as well as 2 MCRC-17773-2021 Counsel for the Complainant. It is submitted by Shri Tripathi that not only Revenue Courts are not competent to mutate the name of person on the basis of "Will", but it is clear from the order dated 17.02.2021, which has been filed by the applicant, the SDO by giving findings that the death certificate of Shobharam was not filed before the Court of Tehsildar, but still directed for mutation of name of Saurabh on the basis of "Will" without giving any

findings as to whether the beneficiary has removed all the suspicious circumstances which are attached to "Will" or not. It is submitted that under these circumstances, the allegations of committing rape on prosecutrix on 03.03.2021 cannot be said to be by way of counterblast or out of animosity.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties as well as considering reasons assigned by SDO (Revenue), Pichore, Distt. Shivpuri in order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the SDO as well as in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Ramkali vs. Banmali and Another, by order dated 17/02/2021 in WP No. 6695/2013 by which it has been held that the Revenue authorities/Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an application for mutation of the name of beneficiary on the basis of "Will", this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out for for grant of anticipatory bail.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

ar

ABDUR RAHMAN 2021.04.06 18:23:43 +05'30'