Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 315 (RAJ)

Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-07

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners-Rameshwar son of Surja Ram, Ramdev son of Rameshwar (Ramdev has wrongly been mentioned as son of Surja Ram in the memo of misc. petition) and Prithvi Raj son of Kishna Ram seeking quashing of the FIR No. 483/2012, registered at the Police Station Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this misc. petition are that the respondent-complainant No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh against the petitioners alleging inter alia that the land measuring 38 bighas in Chak 3 RWM and 36 bighas in Chak 9 DWM was entered into the name of complainant's maternal grand father (nana) namely Surja Ram. Surja Ram expired on 18.6.1990 living behind off springs namely his son Rameshwar and daughter Bhuri Devi, who was the complainant's mother. The complainant claimed that Surja Ram had three legal heirs including his wife. The complainant further alleged that after the death of Surja Ram, his land was continued to be in the possession of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Rameshwar and his son Ramdev. The complainant's mother Bhuri Devi expired in the year 1979. Thereafter, the complainant, his brothers and sisters repeatedly requested the petitioners Rameshwar and Ramdev that the ancestral agricultural land should be partitioned and their share should be given to them. On the one pretext or the other, the accused avoided to do so. The complainant further alleged that his maternal grand mother (nani) i.e. Pari Devi wife of Surja Ram expired on 14.4.1993, whereas, the complainant's mother Bhuri Devi had expired 33 years ago living behind 11 sons and daughters. The complainant took out a copy of the revenue record of the agricultural land in question from the concerned office on 4.9.2012 and found that the accused petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 connived with the Sarpanch Prithvi Raj of the Gram Panchayat concerned and prepared a false and fraudulent succession certificate, in which, only two legal heirs of Surja Ram were shown. The complainant's mother's name was not entered into the succession deed. On the basis of the fraudulent succession certificate, the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 connived with the Sarpanch Prithvi Raj of the Gram Panchayat concerned and prepared a false and fraudulent succession certificate, in which, only two legal heirs of Surja Ram were shown. The complainant's mother's name was not entered into the succession deed. On the basis of the fraudulent succession certificate, the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 got the mutation of the ancestral lands located at Chak 3 RWM and 36 bighas in Chak 9 DWM transferred in their own names and in the name of their mother Pari Devi on 10.7.1990. Thereafter, the accused persons also got Pari Devi's land mutated in their name on 11.2.2008 fraudulently. The complainant alleged that the mutation entries were fraudulently executed by the accused and as such their act amounted to offence. 3. The complaint thus filed by the complainant was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and an FIR being FIR No. 483/2012 was registered at the Police Station Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 4. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 who are the legal heirs of the deceased Surja Ram being his son and grandson respectively and the petitioner No. 3 Prithvi Raj, who was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned at the relevant time have now approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR impugned under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel Shri R.S. Shekhawat appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that at the time when the mutation entries were made, there was no provision of law, whereby, a married daughter of a male Hindu man could be entitled for a share in his property. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are being involved in this case merely on the basis of the alleged fraudulent mutation entries. He submits that the mutation entries which have been entered in the record are simple fiscal entries and do not give any rights over the property. He thus submits that the allegation of the complainant regarding the alleged mutation entries being false and fraudulent entries bringing the same within the definition of an offence cannot be accepted ex-facie. He submits that the mutation entries which have been entered in the record are simple fiscal entries and do not give any rights over the property. He thus submits that the allegation of the complainant regarding the alleged mutation entries being false and fraudulent entries bringing the same within the definition of an offence cannot be accepted ex-facie. Learned counsel submits that none of the documents which are alleged to have been prepared in this case fall within the definition of a forged document and, thus, the FIR impugned which has been filed in this case for the offences of cheating and forgery is ex facie an abuse of the process of the Court. He thus submits that the FIR impugned deserves to be quashed. 6. Per contra, Shri J.K. Suthar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant No. 2 submits that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 connived with the petitioner No. 3 the Sarpanch and furnished false information of heir hood to the revenue authorities for getting the mutation of the agricultural land in question executed in their favour. He thus submits that the FIR impugned ex facie discloses commission of cognizable offences and, as such, the same should not be interfered with by this Court while exercising the inherent powers. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the FIR impugned as well as the case diary. 8. From a perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that the disputed mutation entry in relation whereto the FIR was filed was made way back in the year 1990. The succession certificate which has been issued by the petitioner Prithvi Raj, who was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned at the relevant time was issued on 10.7.1990 that is nearly 23 years ago. The certificate has been issued in favour of Smt.Pari Devi and Rameshwar. At that time, there was no objection from the side of the complainant party that Smt.Bhuri Devi being the daughter of Surja Ram was thus having any entitlement of any share in the property in question. 9. The Investigating Officer too has noted in the case diary that the complainant has repeatedly been given notices for the purpose of filing on record any document for showing that Smt.Bhuri Devi was the legal heir of late Surja Ram, but, no such document has been filed till date. 9. The Investigating Officer too has noted in the case diary that the complainant has repeatedly been given notices for the purpose of filing on record any document for showing that Smt.Bhuri Devi was the legal heir of late Surja Ram, but, no such document has been filed till date. Though, there is oral testimony on the record by way of the statements of the legal heirs of Smt.Bhuri Devi who have deposed that Smt.Bhuri Devi was the daughter of Surja Ram but the said testimony is not supported by any documentary evidence. The relevant record which has been collected by the Investigating Officer does not show that the deceased Surja Ram was having any legal heirs apart from the petitioner Rameshwar and his wife Smt.Pari Devi. Thus, prima facie the allegation of the complainant that Smt. Bhuri Devi was a legal heir of Surja Ram and was entitled to a share in his property has not been established on record till date. 10. The matter also involves a serious question as to whether a simple mutation claimed to have been entered fraudulently in the land records can be considered to be a forgery of a valuable security. The law is well settled that the mutation entry is nothing but a fiscal entry and does not give rise to any property rights. Reliance in this regard can be had to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1989 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para No. 123 of the judgment held as under:- "123. In this regard, it may also be pertinent to deal with mutation proceedings heavily relied upon by the respondent No. 1. Mutation proceedings are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries. "Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value of title. It only enables the person, in whose favour the mutation is entered, to pay the land revenue in question." 11. Mutation proceedings are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries. "Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value of title. It only enables the person, in whose favour the mutation is entered, to pay the land revenue in question." 11. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that by the execution of mutation entry of Surja Ram's land in the names of the petitioners Rameshwar and Ramdev into the revenue record way back in the year 1990 cannot give rise to any offence so as to permit continuance of the investigation of the FIR impugned. Thus, in the view of this Court, permitting continuance of the investigation of the FIR impugned is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 12. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No. 483/2012, registered at the Police Station Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh and all other subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******