Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 165 (MP)

Purshottam v. Arvind Kumar Jain

2015-02-05

S.K.PALO

body2015
JUDGMENT : S.K. Palo, J. 1. Both petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are being decided by a common order as they relate to the same complaint case. 2. The petitioners filed a criminal complaint case 30/2007 (Purshottam and another Vs. Arvind Kumar and Others) before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raghogarh for the the offence under Sections 465, 466, 420 of IPC. 3. In the complaint case, it is alleged that the accused Nos. 4 to 8 (respondents of M.Cr.C.No. 4042/2008) moved an application before the Tehsildar for demarcation of survey No. 180/1, 181, 182/1, 476. By order of the Tahsildar, the said survey numbers were demarcated by respondent No. 1 (Revenue Inspector) and respondent No. 2/Patwari (respondent of M.Cr.C.No. 6058/2007) 0n 20.06.2004. A Panchnama was drawn in which the petitioners also put their signatures. The petitioners allege that when the Panchnama was placed on record on 11.11.2005 they found that sight towards the end in the Panchnama a sentence has been added which was not there when they signed the Panchnama. The sentence is In part of survey No. 180/1 of area about 0.031 hectare residential house of Surajlal, Purshottam and Others S/o Gyasilal is situated. 4. On this complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raghogarh, called the Police report. By order dated 31.01.2007 the learned JMFC took cognizance under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC and refused to take cognizance of Sections 465, 466 of IPC. The respondents of revision No. 63/2007 challenged order dated 31.01.2007. Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, vide order dated 27.07.2007 allowed the revision and set-aside the order dated 31.01.2007 as regarding the accused Nos.1 and 2 Sessions Judge held that as the entry made in the Panchnama letter is not false and the same has been endorsed by the Revenue Court and no action of cheating was initiated by the Revenue Court for the so called forged report Panchnama, submitted before it held that the order dated 21.01.2007 of Learned JMFC, Raghogarh is not sustainable. 5. Accused and respondents No. 3 to 8 filed a Criminal Revision No. 318/2007 and challenged the same order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raghogarh in the Criminal Case No. 30/2007. 5. Accused and respondents No. 3 to 8 filed a Criminal Revision No. 318/2007 and challenged the same order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raghogarh in the Criminal Case No. 30/2007. Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the revision by order dated 21.02.2008 and held that the said order dated 31.01.2007 is error in the eyes of law and not legal for the reason that the entry made in the Panchnama, if at all entered later actually is true and not false. More so, the said entry was held correct in Civil Suit No. 63A/2007. Hence, the order is liable to be set-aside. 6. It would be not out of context to mention here that accused No. 3 (and respondent No. 1 Moolchand) died, therefore, his name has been deleted in M.Cr.C.No. 4042/2008. The respondent No. 1 of Criminal Revision No. 4042/2008, therefore, exonerated vide order dated 21.02.2008 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge. 7. Vide petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in challenged the order dated 27.07.2007 and the petitioners (complainants) in M.Cr.C.No. 4042/2008 have challenged the order dated 21.02.2008 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna. 8. In M.Cr.C.No. 6058/2007, the petitioners contended that prima facie offence under Section 420 of Cr.P.C. is made out against the respondents No. 1 and 2(accused No. 1 and 2) for they have added a new line in the Panchnama and offence under Section 468of IPC is therefore made out, for they committed forgery intending the forged document to be used for the purpose of cheating. This is a valuable document. Therefore, offence under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC is made out. Hence, the order under challenge is not sustainable and requested to set-aside the order dated 27.07.2007 passed by JMFC, Raghogarh. 9. In M.Cr.C.No. 4042/2008, the petitioners (complainants) also challenged the impugned order dated 21.02.2008 and submitted that the learned revisional Court has wrongly set- aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The order of the revisional Court is not well reasoned specially when it was found prima-facie offence is made out by the Trial Court against the respondents by subsequently adding the signatures in the Panchnama. The finding of revisional Court deserves to be set-aside. 10. I have gone through the records of the cases. 11. Heard the parties in detail. 12. The finding of revisional Court deserves to be set-aside. 10. I have gone through the records of the cases. 11. Heard the parties in detail. 12. It can be simply said that the order passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, does not call for any interference. 13. Firstly, Respondents No. 1 and 2 (M.Cr.C.No. 6058/2007) are Govt. servants. No sanction has been obtained under Section197 of Cr.P.C for they have prepared the demarcation and Panchnama while discharging their official duty or purporting to have discharged their duty and submitted the report to the Revenue Court. Secondly, as per the Police report dated 31.08.2006 submitted to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raghogarh, it has given a finding that complainant party asserts that the said single line endorsement was made later whereas the other party reiterated that it was endorsed immediately after the Panchnama was prepared. But the Police report also indicates that house of Gyasilal is situated at Survey No. 191. 14. Thirdly, it is also to be considered that in Civil Suit No. 63-A/2007 Moolchand Vs. Surajlal and Others in which the petitioners are defendants and Moolchand (accused) was the plaintiff. A definite finding was given in issue No. 2 in Survey No. 180/1 house of Surajlal, Purushottam and Gyasilal is situated. This facts corroborates the entry made in the Panchnama or in other words the disputed endorsement is not false. 15. Fourthly, besides this, it is observed that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 468 of IPC is not satisfied, as the endorsement is not false and it is not proved that the same has not been endorsed for wrongful gain. 16. Fifthly, it is not the case of the petitioners that no such house is built, as has been endorsed as survey No. 180/01. 17. That being so, it is not deemed proper to interfere in the orders dated 27.07.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 63/2007 and order dated 21.02.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 318/2007 both by the learned Third Additional 482 of Cr.P.C. are dismissed.