Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 22 (RAJ)

Sandeep Gochar v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-05

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2016
ORDER : Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. The petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Patwari, by way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 95/2015 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Burea, Jaipur for offence under Section 13 (1) (c) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and Section 120-B IPC to his extent. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and co-accused on the premise that they entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the same, the land in dispute was entered into the name of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar in the revenue record and on that basis co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar was able to obtain compensation for the land acquired which stood in his name in the revenue record. Further allegation is that although no tube-well was present in the agriculture land of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar but on the basis of a wrong report prepared by the petitioner in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar was able to obtain amount of compensation for acquisition of his land having tube-well upon it for the construction of national highway. 3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant time petitioner was working as Patwari only and he on the basis of order dated 1.11.2004 issued by the then Tehsildar Anta (District Baran) co-accused in this case, prepared proposal of Mutation No. 426 in favour of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar which was duly verified by Tehsildar himself on 4.11.2004 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner as Patwari was in any manner responsible for the opening of mutation wrongly in favour of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar. It was further submitted that the then Assistant Collector Anta (District Baran) vide letter dated 17.1.2004 directed Tehsildar, Anta to enter the land in dispute in the name of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar and in compliance of the same Tehsildar directed the petitioner vide his order dated 1.11.2004 to enter mutation of the land in dispute in favour of the co-accused and in compliance of the aforesaid order only petitioner as Patwari made a proposal for opening of mutation in favour of co-accused which was verified by the Tehsildar by his order dated 4.11.2004. It was submitted that as the mutation was proposed to be entered by the petitioner in compliance of order of a higher officer, no offence can be said to have been committed by him even prima facie. It was also submitted that it is not the case of prosecution that any demand and acceptance of bribe was made by the petitioner and in absence of the same, no offence under the provisions of the Act is disclosed against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that before proposing to open mutation in favour of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar in compliance of the order dated 1.11.2004 issued by the co-accused the then Tehsildar, Anta, it was the duty of the petitioner to undertake physical inspection of the land in dispute regarding construction of well upon it and possession of the co-accused-Shri Tejkaran but the petitioner in connievance with the co-accused failed to do so and mechanically made proposal for opening of the mutation. It was also submitted that from the evidence collected during investigation it has further been found that a wrong inspection report was prepared by the petitioner as Patwari to the effect that tube-well is present on agriculture land of the co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar whereas no such tube-well was ever present upon his land and it was irrigated from a well situated on Khasra No. 667. 5. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the evidence collected during investigation which has been produced before me by way of case diary, I prima facie found that there is sufficient evidence available on record showing involvement of the petitioner in the offence for which the aforesaid FIR has been registered. It cannot be said that from the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected during investigation the essential ingredients to constitute the offences for which the aforesaid FIR has been registered are not disclosed even prima facie. The present case is not of that rare category in which the FIR is required to be quashed at this initial stage of the proceedings. It cannot be said that the petitioner as Patwari proposed to open mutation of the land in dispute in favour of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar merely in compliance of the order dated 1.11.2004 of the then Tehsildar. It was duty of the petitioner as Patwari to make physical inspection of the land in dispute about construction of well upon it by the co-accused and his possession over it but no such exercise was in fact undertaken by the petitioner and a proposal was made by him for opening of mutation in favour of co-accused-Shri Tejkaran which was verified by co-accused the then Tehsildar. The petitioner cannot escape from his liability merely by saying that he performed his duty as Patwari in compliance of the order of the Tehsildar. Similarly during the course of investigation it has further been found that although no tube-well was present on the agriculture land of the co-accused-Shri Tejkaran Gurjar and this land was being irrigated by a well situated on Khasra No. 667 but the petitioner made a false report about presence of a tube well and the co-accused-Shri Tejkaran was able to obtain compensation for acquisition of tube-well also. I do not find it a fit case in which while exercising its discretionary powers conferred upon it under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the aforesaid FIR to the extent of petitioner is liable to be quashed. I am of the opinion that the prosecution must get opportunity to prove charge against the petitioner during trial. 6. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition being meritless is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.