Suresh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8624 MP

                           1
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                           BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                    ON THE 29th OF JUNE, 2022

              WRIT PETITION No. 14277 of 2022

     Between:-
     SURESH       SHARMA    S/O      LATE   SHRI
     PRABHUDAYAL SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 76
     YE A R S , OCCUPATION: RETIRED SERVENT
     SERVICE, R/o- BILLAOWA TEHSIL DABRA
     DISTRICT      GWALIOR   (M.P.),   PRESENTLY
     RESIDENT OF - BARGE KI GOTH JANAKGANJ
     LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                   .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI G.S. SHARMA-ADVOCATE)

     AND

1.   THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
     SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
     VALLABH    BHAWAN,    BHOPAL (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

2.   THE COLLECTOR, DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

3.   THE   SUPERINTENDENT LAND  RECORD
     GWALIOR, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

4.   THE NAYAB TEHSILDAR DABRA, DISTRICT
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.   MAHESH OJHA, REVENUE INSPECTOR OFFICE
     OF LAND RECORD, CITY CENTER, GWALIOR
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.   SMT PRITI CHAURASIYA PATWARI, OFFICE OF
     LAND    RECORD, CITY CENTER, GWALIOR
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.   SANTOSH CHAURASIYA S/O SHRI CHINTURAM
     CHAURASIYA, R/o PARAS VIHAR COLONY IN
     FRONT OF POLICE STATION JHANSI ROAD,
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                     2

8.       RAJENDRA    CHAURASIYA    S/O   SHRI
         CHINTURAM CHAURASIYA, R/o CHAURASIYA
         COLONY GUDI GUDA KA NAKA, LASHKAR,
         GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
         (SHRI JITESH SHARMA-GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)

       Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking reliefs :

"7.1 That, the respondents authority be directed to take the action

on the representation of the petitioner and initiate the proceedings against the respondent No.5 Mahesh Ojha and respondent No.6 Smt. Priti Chaurasiya and passed the appropriate order against them for misusing there post and power.

7.2 That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."

According to the petitioner, on the basis of a non-existing order passed by the Collector, the respondent No.5 prepared a demarcation proceedings. It is submitted that in-fact the Deputy Collector, Land Records Gwalior had given a direction to the Tahsildar by order dated 09.10.2018 for demarcation. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 had tried to misuse his office in order to favour the husband of one Preeti Chaurasiya. It is submitted that the demarcation done by respondent No.5 was subsequently set-aside, and accordingly, it was prayed that the action may be taken against respondents No.5 to 8 for misuse of public office as well as cheating.

It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the representation made to

the Collector, Gwalior is still pending and no action has been taken. It is further submitted that a similar complaint has been made to Superintendent of Police Gwalior but that has also fallen on deaf ears.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By a representation made by the petitioner, the petitioner is seeking two reliefs, i.e. a departmental action against respondents No.5 & 6 and criminal action for cheating against respondents No.5 to 8.

So far the departmental action is concerned, it is well established principle of law that a Public Interest Litigation in service matters by a busy body is not maintainable.

The Supreme Court in case of Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2755 has held as under :

"11. It is relevant to state here that vide order dated 03-09- 1998 passed in Title Suit No. 382 of 1993, the sub-Judge-VI, Patna ordered that both the suits bearing Title Suit No. 382 of 1993 and 15 of 1996 will be tried simultaneously as agreed by the parties though it will be decided by separate judgments. This was done only because the conflicting judgments may not be delivered in the matter. As such both the suits are pending in one and the same Court.

12. The son of respondent No.1 was examined as a witness in

the Title Suit No. 382 of 1993 as PW-1. While being cross examined, he was shown the signature on the written agreement dated 02-09-

1978 through pinhole method, when he identified the signature of the plaintiff, his mother-respondent No. 1 herein. Then the document was disclosed to be the bilateral agreement dated 02-09-1978 which

contained the signature of respondent No. 1 herein. The son of respondent No. 1 has admitted in para 15 of his deposition as follows:

"The signature on the document of 3 pages is of my mother which I identify/acknowledge (the witness gives this statement when only signature portion of the agree ment dated 2-9-1978 shown to him through pinhole method)."

13. When respondent No. 1's son admitted the signature on the written agreement dated 02-09-1978 of his mother, Smt. Usha Sinha, respondent No. 1 herein, then took a U-turn in her stand and instead of denying the total existence of the written agreement dated 02-09-1978, started accepting the existence of the agreement dated 02-09 1978 but pleaded interpolation in the renewal clause. Subsequently in the course of cross-examination, respondent No. 1 herself in paragraph Nos. 19 and 26 admitted that while signing the bilateral lease agreement dated 02-09-1978 she had read the agreement and thereafter she had signed. She had also admitted that stamp paper on which the bilateral lease agreement was signed was purchased by her. When respondent No. 1 admitted the existence of the agreement dated 02-09-1978 after identification of her signature by her son in cross examination on 01-12-1998, she filed a petition on 04-12-1998 objecting the admissibility of the written agreement dated 02-09 1978 by changing her stand and stating that only the renewal clause was interpolated. Appellant No. 1 filed the rejoinder and contended that the witness of respondent No. 1 cannot be examined without deciding the petition dated 04-12-1998 by which

interpolation has been alleged in the renewal clause of agreement dated 02-09-1978. The Court below did not allow the prayer of ap pellant No. 1. However, as respondent No.1 was not ready to press the petition dated 04-12-1998, the sub-Judge allowed the petition of the appellants dated 01-12-1998 by which the prayer for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to find out whether the present passage existing in the west as per the written agreement dated 02-09-1978 or in the east as per the registered lease deed dated 12-08-1978. The appellants filed rejoinder to the petition dated 04-12-1998 of respondent No. 1 and submitted that there is no interpolation nor it change the nature of the suit. Respondent No. 1 filed a petition stating that question of interpolation in the renewal clause of the agreement dated 02 09-1978 alleged through the petition dated 04-12- 1978 would not be pressed at present. The appellants filed rejoinder on 09-12-1998 to the petition dated 07-12-1998 to the effect that without deciding the question of interpolation finally, the evidence cannot be adduced. Hence they prayed that the petition dated 04-12- 1998 of the defendant-respondent may be disposed of first and then the evidence should proceed. The sub-Judge vide order dated 09-12- 1998 directed the appellants to cross-examine the witness otherwise they would be discharged, since respondent No. 1 was not pressing the petition dated 04-12-1998 at present and when the petition would be pressed by respondent No. 1, the appellants would get the chance of rebuttal."

Thus, the request made to the Collector, Gwalior to take a departmental

action against respondents No.5 & 6 is not maintainable.

So far as the criminal prosecution of the respondents No.5 to 8 is concerned, the allegations against them are that a demarcation proceedings were initiated which were set-aside by the SDO.

Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the competent authority for registration of offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Even otherwise, it is well established principle of law that a writ petition for registration of offence is not maintainable.

In light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P ., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, Aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171, Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 542 and Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.247/2016 (Shweta Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.), no direction can be given to the respondents to register the FIR.

Viewed from every angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that this petition sans merits and is accordingly, dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Aman AMAN TIWARI 2022.07.01 11:28:27 +05'30'