Dhaniram Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1023 MP

                                                         1
                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                          CRA-08289-2021
                                        (DHANIRAM RAJAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                      CRA/08289/2021, CRA/00342/2022, CRA/00501/2022
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 21-01-2022
                              Heard through Video Conferencing.

                              Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Md.
                      Samar Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants in Cr.A. No.7533/2021.
                              Shri B.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr.A.
                      No.8289/2021.

                              Shri T.S. Ruprah, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Uma Shankar
                      Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr.A. No.342/2022.
                              Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr.A.
                      No.501/2022.
                              Ms.   Swati Aseem       George,    learned    Panel Lawyer      for   the
                      respondents/State.

Shri Sanjay Jharia, learned counsel for respondent No.2. in Cr.A. No.7533/2021 and Cr.A. No.8289/2021.

These Criminal appeals under Section 14-A of the Schedule Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed on behalf of appellants' Dr. Mangla Neware and Dr. Ashish Khare, purchasers Dhaniram Rajak, Kanoongo Vinod Kumar Sahu Retd. Naib Tehsildar and Anil Gurjar, Peon in the Tehsil Office respectively, on account of registration of Crime No.158/2021 registered at Police Station Dongergaon, District- Narsinghpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 476, 468, 120-B/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(f) of SC/ST Act.

Through this appeal, appellants' are claiming benefit of anticipatory bail.

Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that some of the appellants are members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe category and some are belonging to General/ OBC category respectively. They had entered into an Signature Not SAN Verified agreement for sale in relation to land contained in survey No.40/1, 43/2, Digitally signed by APARNA TIWARI Date: 2022.01.25 09:47:04 IST

44/10, 50, 51 and 54 having different areas measuring in all 3.322 hectares situated at Moja Chwar Gaon, Rajasva Nirikshak Mandal, Chichli with Lakshman s/o Gopi Gond, Premwati, Rekhabai, Durgabai and Sheelabai. After entering into an agreement to sale, on 09.07.2014 steps were taken for up-dating the status of two of the sellers from minor to major and also for

changing the entry of 'non-transferable' to 'transferable' and when these proceedings were drawn before the Naib Tehsildar, Gadarwara on 02.11.2017 by Lakshman S/o Gopi Gond and others then vide order dated 28.11.2017 Naib Tehsildar, Gadarwara passed orders for correcting the land records and deleted the entry 'non-transferable' and changed it to 'transferable' where- after, sale-deed was registered by the Power of Attorney holder on 26.12.2017.

It is submitted that photographs of all the sellers have been affixed on the registered sale-deed namely Lakshman, Premwati, Durgabai so also of the purchaser Mangla Nevare yet a dispute has been raised by the complainant Smt. Sheela Bai Gond W/o Gopi Gond that present appellants' in a dishonest and fradulent manner obtained sale-deed of the land in question though papers were given to them for the purposes of KCC loan only. It is also alleged that the land was 'non-transferable' and in collusion with Naib Tehsildar, land was made transferable,without their being any order of the competent authority. It is also alleged that in this conspiracy, the present appellants, which includes purchasers so also the concerned Naib Tehsildar, Process Server and Officer Clerk in the Court of Naib Tehsildar are also party to the criminal conspiracy.

It is further submitted by Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior Advocate, Shri B.M. Prasad, Shri T.S. Ruprah, learned senior counsel and Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant that a civil suit was filed by the Dr. Mangla Nevare, which was registered as RCS-11A/2019 and

in this suit, vide order dated 11.05.2019, Learned 3 rd Civil Judge, Class-II, Gadarwara has allowed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and has

directed the parties i.e. the respondent No.1 Lakshman Gaur to neither take possession of the land nor cause any hindrance in the possession of the plaintiffs.

Reliance is placed on judgment of Supreme Court in case of Rahna Jalal Vs. State of Kerala and Another (2021) 1 SCC 733 and reading paras 23 and 24, it is submitted that it is a good case to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail.

Smt. Swati Aseem George, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State in her turn opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that firstly Naib Tehsildar is not the competent authority to remove the note of 'non-transferable' mentioned in column 12 of the Khasra

entries, this authority is vested in the Sub-Divisional Officer.

The Process Server and the Office Clerk have acted in collusion and have been part of conspiracy to subvert the legal process so to cause damage to the interest of the complainants. The purchasers are the kingpin of the controversy as they are the beneficiaries of the transaction.

It is further submitted by Shri Sanjay Jharia, learned counsel for the objector that the plea on behalf of the purchasers that they too belong to SC/ST category and, therefore, rigors of the provisions of SC/ST Act will not be applicable will be of no assistance. Taking into consideration a fact that other appellants before this Court namely the Naib Tehsildar, Clerk of his Court and Process Server do not belong to SC/ST community and, therefore, bar of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, 1989 will still be attracted. It is submitted that appellants are influential persons, they are already trying to bring pressure on the complainant and if given benefit of anticipatory bail then will obstruct recovery of necessary documents in their possession and will be embolden to threaten complainants.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that admittedly there is an entry of 'non-transferable' in column 12 of the Khasra which is a revenue document, this entry has been

deleted by the Naib Tehsildar without having authority to do so and a land of Patta has been converted into a free hold land by the Naib Tehsildar for which he has no authority. Actually this authority is vested in the District Collector and not even in the Sub-Divisional Officer.

Thus, prima facie ingredients of Sections 420, 406, 476, 468 and 120- B/34 of IPC appears to have been made out.

As far as other pleas are concerned, they are to be viewed in the realm of social justice and when the beneficiaries are influential persons and the purpose of allotting land to persons belonging to marginal existence like tribals is a welfare measure on the part of the State so to permit them to earn their livelihood, then it cannot be said that prima facie ingredients of offence are missing and they have been implicated in a false and fictitious case. In fact appellants are influential persons. Some of them are holder of Public Office which is an office of Trust for public good. Office and position are to used in accordance with Rules and Regulations. These action should all be above board. In case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Others 2020 SCC online SC 159, A pre-arrest bail can be given by the Court under its inherent power, when no prima facie material exists for arresting a person under the Act. In present case, it cannot be said that prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(f) of SC/ST Act is not made.

Law laid down in case of Rahna Jalal is on different facts where Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mother-in-law cannot be termed to be an offender for tripple talaq for which actually husband is the accused and on said basis held that the Kerala High Court has wrongly applied the provisions of law. But here case is different.

Thus, grant of anticipatory bail being an exceptional exercise of jurisdiction, to prevent abuse of law and save innocent persons on whom false cases may be foisted, I do not find it to be a fit case to enlarge appellants on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, application fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE AT