Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 174 (PAT)

Radheyshyam Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-24

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. State has filed a counter affidavit defending the action of the authorities. The petitioner has challenged the authority of the State in filing the FIR against him and/or prosecuting him. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 4. A land ceiling proceeding was initiated. In the said proceeding on behalf of the landholder an affidavit was filed allegedly showing that certain members of the family have became majors, thus making claim for additional units. During the proceedings certain orders were passed and ultimately merely relying on the said affidavit the consolidation proceedings were concluded. No notification declaring surplus land was issued. They were issued ultimately in the year 2002. The State curiously being aggrieved by its own order filed an appeal before the Collector. During the pendency of the said appeal the landholder, who was made party, died. The petitioner, who was the son of the landholder was substituted. These proceedings were then challenged by the petitioner before this court by a writ application. Pursuant thereto the appeal proceedings have remained stayed. In the meantime the Collector, before whom the appeal was pending, prima facie, finding that the affidavit filed on behalf of the landholder in the original proceedings was false, ordered prosecution and mindful of the fact that the landholder had died since then. Accordingly the police registered an FIR on the report of A.D.M. (Ceiling) as against the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged his prosecution basically on two grounds. Firstly he has submitted that admittedly the affidavit which is the cause of the prosecution, which was filed on behalf of the landholder was not filed either by him or with his consent or with his knowledge and he was not at all involved in those proceedings. He first steps into the proceedings on death of landholder on being substituted by the State in appeal. Therefore, on this short ground itself the prosecution is misconceived. He first steps into the proceedings on death of landholder on being substituted by the State in appeal. Therefore, on this short ground itself the prosecution is misconceived. Secondly, it is submitted that at best it is a case of using forged document or a wrong document in course of proceedings before the Revenue Authority, which could be an offence punishable in terms of Sec.195 read with Sec.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for which only a written complaint by the court concerned was maintainable and no FIR was maintainable and further a distinction offence is created under Land Ceiling Act itself wherein a complaint has to be filed by the competent officer in this regard. Thess steps have not been taken. 5. In the counter affidavit the State has not disputed the basic facts that socalled affidavit was not filed by the petitioner in any manner. It is not disputed that it was filed by the landholder and the petitioner step into the proceedings only after as a consequence of the landholder and that too at the appeal stage on being substituted by the State in place of the landholder. In the counter affidavit it is stated that in course of investigation sufficient material has been found against the petitioner and accordingly the Superintendent of Police has opined the filing of charge-sheet. When confronted by this Court as to what was the material which was found implicating the petitioner the learned State counsel very fairly states that except the initial allegation in the FIR, which was misconceived on the face of it, there was no material specifically against the petitioner. To this Court it appears that merely because the Collector of the district ordered for prosecution the authorities blindly pursued with the matter without taking note of uncontroverted facts. On this short issue itself I am left with no option but to hold that the prosecution of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. I, therefore, do not wish to decide the second issue. 6. In the result, this application is allowed and the prosecution of the petitioner in Bettiah (Town) RS. Case No. 541/2002, dated 20.11.2002 is quashed.