Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 232 (JHR)

Vivekanand Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2014-02-11

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
Order : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Vigilance. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 25 of 2000 (Special Case No. 12 of 2000) registered under Sections 420/423/424/467/468/469/471/477A/109/120B of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as the order dated 18.11.2009, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420 /423 /424/ 467/ 468/ 469/ 471/ 477A / 109/120B of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been taken against the petitioners. 3. The facts, giving rise to this application, are that certain land measuring total area of 10.95 acres, appertaining to Khata No. 360, Plot No. 1260 situated at Mouza-Hundru was recorded in record of right as Gairmazurwa Land. Out of the said land measuring 10.95 acres Jamabandi with respect to land measuring 3.12 acres was opened in the name of Chandan Sao S/o Samu Sao and Bharat Sao. Much thereafter, one rent receipt was issued in the year 1968 in favour of Chandan Sao and Bharat Sao, who, subsequently, sold the land to Mahavir Kashi, the then Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society in the year 1988-89, whose name was mutated in the records of right by the then Circle Officer Sri J.N. Singh in 1989-90 in Mutation Case No.1631 of 1989-90. Immediately thereafter, the Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society sold the land to the Members of the Society. These petitioners are the sons of the then Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society. After purchasing the land, the Members of the Society made applications for mutating the land in their favour. 4. Acting upon those applications, mutation cases were registered as 1970/1988-89, 1969/88-89, 2288/89-90, 2291/89-90 and 2405/89-90 and then order was passed for mutating the names of the Members of the Society against the lands purchased by them. 5. Since the land initially had been recorded as Gairmazurwa Land, transfers of said land to different persons were considered to be illegal and, therefore, a case was lodged by the Inspector, Vigilance against several persons including these petitioners on the allegation that all those persons have committed offence of forgery, cheating and misappropriation etc. 6. 5. Since the land initially had been recorded as Gairmazurwa Land, transfers of said land to different persons were considered to be illegal and, therefore, a case was lodged by the Inspector, Vigilance against several persons including these petitioners on the allegation that all those persons have committed offence of forgery, cheating and misappropriation etc. 6. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken against these petitioners vide order dated 18.11.2009, which is under challenge. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though initially the land was recorded as Gairmazurwa Land rent receipts with respect to that land were issued in favour of Chandan Sao, when Jamabandi was opened in his name and the name was recorded in Register-II. Thereafter he transferred the land to Mahavir Kashi, the then Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society, whose name was mutated against the land purchased by him from Samu Sao, by the then Circle Officer and these petitioners have been made accused simply for the reason that they are the son of the Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society, though no allegation whatsoever is there against these petitioners constituting offence of cheating, forgery or misappropriation and that nothing is there to show that these petitioners were instrumental in getting the rent receipts issued either in the name of Chandan Sao or Samu Sao and, therefore, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. 8. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance, submits that admittedly the land, in question was recorded as Gair Mazurua Land which land had never been settled to Samu Sao still Samu Sao managed to get the rent receipts issued in his favour against that land and then in connivance with the Government officials, he got his name mutated against the land, in question. After his death, his son-Chandan Sao inherited the property. He also in connivance with the Government officials by illegal means got that land mutated in his name. The same is the case with the subsequent transferees against whose name, the land was mutated by the then Circle Officer though the Circle Officer under a Circular had been restrained from opening jamabandi without having approval of the S.D.O. 9. He also in connivance with the Government officials by illegal means got that land mutated in his name. The same is the case with the subsequent transferees against whose name, the land was mutated by the then Circle Officer though the Circle Officer under a Circular had been restrained from opening jamabandi without having approval of the S.D.O. 9. Earlier when the similar matter, which has been preferred by the then Circle Officer, who has been alleged to have mutated the name of the transferees, was heard, it was noted that no offence whatsoever, under which cognizance has been taken, is made out. So far as the case of these petitioners is concerned, it appears to be on far better ground as these petitioners have never been alleged to have done anything either in the matter relating to purchase of the land or getting the land mutated in their names. The petitioners seem to have been made accused for the reason that they happened to be the sons of the then Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society who had purchased the land in the name of the society. Therefore, on this ground and also for the same reason, which has been assigned in a case of Jag Narain Singh (Cr.M.P. No. 2648 2012), entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance Case No. 25 of 2000 (Special Case No. 12 of 2000) including the order dated 18.11.2009, taking cognizance against these petitioners, is hereby quashed. 10. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.