ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. By way of filing this instant miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Revision No. 8/2015 [295/2014], whereby the revisional court upheld the order dated 15.10.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, as well as the complaint and entire further proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 23/2011, wherein cognizance has been taken for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The instant petitions, being connected in nature, arise out of the same set of allegations pertaining to the allotment of strip land adjoining Plot No. 990, Geeta Bhawan, Jodhpur. A complaint was preferred by one Nand Lal Vyas before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which came to be registered as Complaint No. 23/2011. The complainant alleged that the said plot, measuring 3848 square feet and originally recorded in the joint name of his grandfather Late Shri Shimbhoo Lal, father Late Shri Madan Lal, and uncle Shri Om Prakash, was falsely shown to be measuring 4720 square feet in an application moved for strip land allotment. It was contended that 872 square feet of encroached land was wrongly added to the original plot dimensions to facilitate the allotment of 337 square feet of additional land as strip land. It was further alleged that Smt. Devkaur Vyas (Accused No.1 and grandmother of the complainant) in connivance with other private individuals and officials of the Municipal Corporation, including the then Mayor, Commissioners, Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Legal Officer and others, acted in conspiracy to show inflated measurements of the property and thereby caused loss to the public exchequer. The complainant also claimed that despite pendency of a civil suit challenging the will, on the basis of which succession was claimed over the property in question, the authorities proceeded to allot the strip land in a hasty manner without following due process, including issuing notices in a newspaper allegedly lacking RNI registration and DPR sanction.The matter was referred for police investigation, following which a report dated 26.10.2012 was submitted concluding prima facie case against the accused persons. Based on the said report, the learned Trial Court took cognizance vide order dated 15.10.2014 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, and 120B IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 8/2015 [295/2014] before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2015, thereby affirming the cognizance order dated15.10.2014. 3. Having heard learned counsels and perused the entirety of record including the impugned orders dated 15.10.2014 and 19.09.2015, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case amounts to gross abuse of process of law. 4. A mere irregularity or administrative lapse in official decision-making, particularly in the day-to-day functioning of municipal bodies, does not ipso facto attract the rigors of criminal law. The offences invoked under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC are grave and require clear demonstration of mens rea, i.e., dishonest or fraudulent intention from the very inception. There is a categorical failure on the part of the courts below to consider the sine qua non of these penal provisions. 5. Section 420 IPC necessitates the existence of deception with fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the time of the transaction. In the case at hand, the application for strip land was processed through official channels and based on documentation presented. There is no material to show that any false representation was made knowingly or with intent to deceive. 6. Sections 467, 468 & 471 IPC pertain to forgery and use of forged documents as genuine. In the present context, the change in area or overwriting on the application form, even if proven, appears to be the result of clerical adjustments or procedural omissions, which were thereafter dealt with at various levels of scrutiny. There is no specific act attributed to the petitioners to suggest that they created forged documents with intent to defraud. 7. The petitioners are public servants whose role was, at best, peripheral and administrative in nature. In institutions such as municipal corporations, files pass through multiple hands before a final decision is taken. It is neither feasible nor legally tenable to presume conspiracy merely because a particular file was signed by an officer in the ordinary course of duty. 8. 7. The petitioners are public servants whose role was, at best, peripheral and administrative in nature. In institutions such as municipal corporations, files pass through multiple hands before a final decision is taken. It is neither feasible nor legally tenable to presume conspiracy merely because a particular file was signed by an officer in the ordinary course of duty. 8. Public officials who process applications forwarded to them after scrutiny by subordinate officers, and who act in accordance with the then-prevailing rules and legal advice, cannot be saddled with criminal liability in the absence of demonstrable dishonest intention. If the strip land allotment was improper, it could very well have been rectified through civil remedies or seal-and-demolish proceedings, but not by dragging officers into protracted criminal trials without cogent evidence. 9. The core of the complainant’s grievance lies in succession and ownership claims over the property, which are already the subject matter of a pending civil suit. The learned Magistrate erred in ignoring this vital aspect. A criminal court cannot be allowed to pre-emptively adjudicate civil rights under the garb of penal prosecution. 10. The strip land allotment was initiated upon application made by Smt. Devkaur Vyas. The process involved submission of maps, inspection reports, newspaper publication (even if later contested), and compliance with procedural formalities. Even if one questions the quality or veracity of such steps, there is no compelling material to infer that the petitioners acted outside the framework of rules or usurped authority for personal gain. 11. This Court notes with concern that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the distinction between procedural lapses and criminal conspiracy. The finding that the opportunity notice was published in a newspaper not recognized by RNI or DPR, or that signatures on inspection reports bore a later date, at best, reflect administrative negligence or irregularity, but not criminal intent. 12. The judicial conscience of this Court is not satisfied that the allegations made or the evidence brought on record, even if taken at face value, make out any case under the cited penal sections. The proceedings are clearly vitiated by non- application of judicial mind and suffer from a manifest error apparent on the face of record. 13. 12. The judicial conscience of this Court is not satisfied that the allegations made or the evidence brought on record, even if taken at face value, make out any case under the cited penal sections. The proceedings are clearly vitiated by non- application of judicial mind and suffer from a manifest error apparent on the face of record. 13. In light of the foregoing, this Court is constrained to hold that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the impugned Complaint No. 23/2011 would result in miscarriage of justice and is liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of the judicial process. 14. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous petitions are allowed. The orders dated 15.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, as well as the revisional order dated 19.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Revision No. 8/2015 [295/2014], are hereby quashed. 15. Consequently, the complaint and all further proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 23/2011 are also quashed and set aside. 16. The stay petitions are disposed of.