Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.K.Bagri vs Ramkishan Yadav And Ors. on 7 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2291 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
R.K.BAGRI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED WITH SHRI NEERJA
AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
RAMKISHAN YADAV AND ORS. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
T h is application coming on for admission this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed seeking quashment of
order dated 29/01/2005 by which a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 477-
A of IPC has been registered against the present applicant.
2. It is contended by the counsel that the present applicant in the capacity of
Tahsildar in terms of the circular issued by the Government from time to time which has
been brought on record as Annexure P/9 had passed the order of allotment of Patta. The
validity of the order was subjected to an appeal which was required to be preferred
before the SDO, however, the order of allotment of patta was questioned by the
respondent/complainant by filing a complaint and the Court also without appreciating the
provisions of Section 2 & 3 of the Judges (Protections Act) 1985 as well as Section 197
of Cr.P.C. proceeded to register the complaint.
3. It is contended by the counsel that if the order was passed by the present
applicant in the capacity of Tahsildar while exercising quasi judicial power. The said
order was appealable in terms of the provisions laid down in Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, however, no criminal liability could have been attached to the
performance of duties by the applicant in the capacity of Tahsildar. It is thus contended
by the counsel that the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
4 . Learned counsel while taking this Court to paragraph 6 of the complaint,
submitted that against the order of granting patta, appeal was preferred and the patta
was cancelled by the Appellate Authority i.e SDO therefore, as the patta in question was
cancelled according to complainant himself, there could not have been any liability under
the criminal law. Learned counsel while placing reliance in the case of N.K. Ogle Vs.
Sanwaldas reported in AIR 1999 SC 1437 and the judgment of Indore Bench of this
Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. Surjan Singh reported in 2003 Cr.L.R. [M.P.]
719 submits that the proceedings deserves to be quashed.
5. No one appeared for the respondents today and no one appeared in last
week also when the final hearing list was taken up.
6. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
7. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
8. In the present case, a perusal of complaint which is contained in Annexure P/1
discloses that the same was filed by the complainant alleging inter alia that the present
petitioner while acting as Tahsildar alloted patta in favour of the persons who were not
eligible for patta and therefore, the present petitioner was guilty of forgery and the act of
the petitioner caused loss to the public exchequer. A bare perusal of the complaint does
not reflect that as to which document were forged by the present applicant.
9. In paragraph 6 of the complaint, the complainant himself stated that some of
the order for granting patta were cancelled by SDO while exercising the Appellate power,
therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the concerned Court was required to
appreciate that the present petitioner has passed the order while acting in the capacity of
quasi judicial authority and the orders were passed by the petitioner in terms of the
MPLRC and also in terms of the circular which authorizes the Tahsildar to grant patta
and such there was no mens ria on the part of the petitioner to commit any offence.
10. The Court was also required to appreciate that there could not have been any
prosecution in view of the Judges (Protections Act) 1985. The Court in a purely
mechanical manner has proceeded to register the complaint, thus, in the considered view
of this Court, the complaint could not have been registered as the petitioner while
exercising the quasi judicial power has passed the order of granting the patta and even
assuming that if there was any irregularities, the pattas could have been assailed by filing
an appeal before the Appellate Authority in terms of the provisions of MPLRC.
11. Resultantly, the order impugned dated 29/01/2005 is set aside and the petition
stand allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
