Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1137 (PAT)

Sudarshan v. State Of Bihar

2009-08-24

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for Sudarshan @ Sudarshan Pandey, the alleged petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 18924 of 2008. learned counsel for Surendra Kumar Pandey who had identified the L.T.I. of the said Sudarshan both on the Vakalatnama as also in the affidavit of the writ petition and learned Standing Counsel No. 18 for the State. 2. The writ petition was allegedly filed by Sudarshan with a prayer for restraining the respondent authorities of the State from illegally encroaching upon his raiyati land pertaining to Khata No. 55/56, Plot No. 211, Area 41 decimals situated in Mahal Bhakura, Village-Manikpura, Thana No. 50, Anchal & P.S.-Simri, District-Buxar for the purpose of construction of road under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna for which grant was sanction by the Government. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on consideration of the submission made on his behalf that no consent had been given by the petitioner for construction of the road over his land, yet the respondent authorities were proceeding in the matter, this Court on 12.2.2009 while granting two weeks time to learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No.18 for filing counter affidavit in the matter directed the respondents not to make any construction of the road over the said raiyati land of the petitioner. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 4 & 5, i.e., the District Magistrate, Buxar, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Buxar, and the Circle Officer, Buxar it was stated that during the course of enquiry and measurement of the spot it was found that there was no road construction on the private land and all the villagers were happy due to construction of the road in question. It was further specifically stated that during the coures of enquiry the petitioner Sudarshan himself appeared with an affidavit dated 19.2.2009 stating therein that he had not filed the writ petition nor had knowledge about the said case rather he was happy with the construction of the road. The said affidavit which was sworn before the Executive Magistrate, Dumraon is annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that not only the averment made in the writ petition is totally baseless rather in view of the affidavit of the said Sudarshan somebody has impersonated himself as Sudarshan with mala fide intention in order to file the fake writ petition. 5. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that not only the averment made in the writ petition is totally baseless rather in view of the affidavit of the said Sudarshan somebody has impersonated himself as Sudarshan with mala fide intention in order to file the fake writ petition. 5. On a consideration of the said facts stated in the counter affidavit this Court on 11.5.2009 directed the identifier of the L.T.I., namely, Surendra Kumar Pandey to be present in Court although learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that said Surendra Kumar Pandey was not responding to his calls. This Court also directed the State Counsel to ensure that the said Sudarshan is personally present in Court on the next date on 18th May, 2009. Both Sudarshan @ Sudarshan Pandey and Surendra Kumar Pandey personally appeared in Court. The said Sudarshan brought his voters identity card issued by the Election Commission of India in support of his identity and made statement before the Court that he has not filed the present writ petition nor he has given any Vakalatnama containing his thumb impression nor he has put his L.T.I. on the affidavit page of the writ petition. It was further stated by him in Court that he has never instructed Surendra Kumar Pandey to file the writ petition in question. 6. Surendra Kumar Pandey, on the other hand, stated that he had been handed over all the papers by the petitioner Sudarshan and he was not very clear about the L.T.I. on the affidavit as to whether it was of the petitioner Sudarshan or someone else including may be his own. 7. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances; the writ application was dismissed and Surendra Kumar Pandey was directed to file show cause as to why appropriate criminal proceedings be not instituted against him in the present matter. The said show cause was filed on 30.6.2009 to which a rejoinder was filed by Sudarshan @ Sudarshan Pandey on 24.7.2009 and a reply to the rejoinder thereafter by Surendra Kumar Pandey has been filed today. 8. In the said show cause filed by Surendra Kumar Pandey it is asserted that Sudarshan had handed over his original abhidhari khata pustika to the deponent so that he could move this Court against the respondents and obtain relief for him and under his instruction the deponent filed the writ petition. 8. In the said show cause filed by Surendra Kumar Pandey it is asserted that Sudarshan had handed over his original abhidhari khata pustika to the deponent so that he could move this Court against the respondents and obtain relief for him and under his instruction the deponent filed the writ petition. It is also asserted, that the two L.T.Is. are of Sudarshan. It is further asserted that other raiyats also gave their abhidhari khata pustika which are still in possession of the deponent. It is stated that the villagers of Bhakura assembled and decided to file writ petition before this Court against the illegal act of encroachment of raiyati lands of the villagers for which they gave donation of Rs. 2,500/- in which Sudarshan had contributed highest amount of Rs. 500/- and also gave his Abhidhari Khata Pustika which was Annexure-1 to the writ petition and the original document is still in possession of Surendra Kumar Pandey. It is further stated that the villagers had authorized Surendra Kumar Pandey to file writ petition by engaging a lawyer in this Court against the illegal act of encroahment of raiyati lands by the contractor. Accordingly after coming to Patna the writ petition was filed by him only in the name of Sudarshan as the amount collected was not sufficient for filing writ petition in the names of other raiyats numbering about 30-35. It is stated that everything was done in complete and correct knowledge of Sudarshan who had himself put his LT.I. on Vakalatnama and affidavit. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for Surendra Kumar Pandey that Sudarshan even after alleged knowledge about the filing of the writ petition in his name never chose to come before this Court and file any affidavit stating the fact that he had not filed the writ petition rather it is the State which in its counter affidavit has brought all the said facts which go to show that the writ petition was as a matter of fact filed by Sudarshan who has now turned around. Learned counsel also refers to a further meeting of the villagers held on 12.8.2009 which speaks about the authorization by the villagers to Sudarshan to file the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel also refers to a further meeting of the villagers held on 12.8.2009 which speaks about the authorization by the villagers to Sudarshan to file the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for Sudarshan, on the other hand, submits that Sudarshan had no grievance regarding the construction of the road under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojha and thus there was no occasion for him to file any writ petition. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the writ petition was part of ongoing dispute leading to series of litigations between Surendra Kumar Pandey and the contractor Rama Shankar Rai. Reference in this regard is made to Case No. 952M of 2008, Surendra Kumar Pandey vs. Rama Shankar Rai under Section 144 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by order dated 2.1.2009 by Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraon holding that the first party Surendra Kumar Pandey had deliberately got the proceedings initiated in order to cause impediment in the development works of the Government. Reference is also made to the criminal case filed in May, 2009 by the said Rama Shankar Rai, the contractor as complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar which after being referred to the police has been registered as Simri P.S. Case No. 65 of 2009 dated 11.5.2009 under Sections 342, 323, 504, 379/34 IPC, Learned counsel for Sudarshan also points out to recent criminal case lodged by Surendra Kumar Pandey being Simri P.S. Case No. 112 of 2009 dated 8.8.2009 under Section 379 IPC against the contractor Rama Shankar Rai and others. It is thus submitted that Sudarshan was wrongly brought in as a writ petitioner after obtaining the copy of abhidhari khata pustika by one of his three other co-sharers and not from Sudarshan himself and after identifying the two L.T.Is. by Surendra Kumar Pandey which was not given by Sudarshan either on the Vakalatnama or in the affidavit to the writ petition. It is thus submitted that it is a clear case of impersonation, forgery and false statement in the course of proceeding before this Court for which a complaint ought to be made in the matter and Surendra Kumar Pandey be sent to face enquiry and trial with respect to commission of such an offence under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. 11. P.C. 11. Learned counsel for the State also supports the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for Sudarshan stating that it is immaterial that the said Sudarshan had not personally come to this Court after learning about the filing of the writ petition as he being an old man of 75 years had immediately approached the authorities with an affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate, Dumraon in the said matter which was also incorporated in its counter affidavit by the State. It is thus submitted that it is a fit case for sending the complaint before the Magistrate for action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against Surendra Kumar Pandey. 12. On a consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for Sudarshan, Surendra Kumar Pandey and learned Standing Counsel No. 18 for the State and in view of the specific denial of Sudarshan that he had not given his L.T.I. either on the Vakalatnama or in the affidavit page of the writ petition or ever authorized Surendra Kumar Pandey to file any writ petition, having no grievance in the matter this Court is satisfied that prima facie a case of impersonation, forgery and making of false statement on affidavit before this Court has been made out against Surendra Kumar Pandey. 13. This Court does not accept the submission made on behalf of Surendra Kumar Pandey that he had been authorized by the co-villagers including Sudarshan to file the present writ petition. The averments made in the writ petition is that the authorities were taking steps for construction of the road in question over the raiyati land of the petitioner without any consent having been given by the petitioner for construction of the road over his land and there is no whisper in the writ petition about his being aggrieved by the said action alongwith other villagers, rather the writ petition was. filed only against the action of the respondent authorities of the State encroaching upon the land of the petitioner without his consent for constructing the road under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna. Further, immediately upon information of the filing of the writ petition, Sudarshan had approached the authorities with an affidavit denying filing of the writ petition or being aggrieved in any way with the construction of the road. Further, immediately upon information of the filing of the writ petition, Sudarshan had approached the authorities with an affidavit denying filing of the writ petition or being aggrieved in any way with the construction of the road. In view of the previous litigation between Surendra Kumar Pandey and Rama Shankar Rai including one criminal proceeding it appears prima facie that Surendra Kumar Pandey has filed the writ petition in furtherance of the grudge against the contractor Rama Shankar Rai. 14. This Court is therefore of the view that it is a fit case for sending the matter to the criminal court for proceeding against Surendra Kumar Pandey under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as he appears to have committed an offence of impersonation, forgery and making of false statement during the course of proceeding before this Court. 15. The Registrar General of this Court is, accordingly, directed to make a complaint with respect to the facts enumerated above before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in the present matter for taking action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against Surendra Kumar Pandey. 16. Let Surendra Kumar Pandey give bond with security amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for his appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court by tomorrow, failing which he shall be taken into custody. 17. Sudarshan @ Sudarshan Pandey is also directed to give a bond for his appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Registrar General by tomorrow. 18. Let the complaint be filed by the Registrar General before the Chief Judicial Magistrate within two months from today. Surendra Kumar Pandey and Sudarshan @ Sudarshan Pandey are directed to present themselves before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 3rd November, 2009 failing which the bonds given by them shall stand cancelled and the security shall be forfeited and further steps shall be taken accordingly by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the matter. After such appearance their further appearance, etc. will be subject to orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.