1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH , SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.: 142 of 2004 Reserved on: 16.07.2008 Decided on: July 21 ,2008 Asha Rani & others Petitioners Versus Rattni Devi & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? yes. For the petitioners: Mr. H.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate. For respondent No.1 Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. For respondent No.2 Mr J.S.Guleria, Law officer Surinder Singh, J. The petitioners are accused in case FIR No. 301/ 97 dated 7.6.1997 registered under sections 218, 466, 467, 474 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Una. The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.1 Smt. Rattni Devi. After investigation, the challan was filed in the court. Vide order dated 14.8.2003 the petitioners were discharged by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una (H.P.). The State as well as the complainant Smt. Rattni Devi had filed separate revision petitions in the court of sessions. Vide order dated 18th August, .2004 the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Una set aside the order of Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 discharge, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una and order for frame of charges against the petitioners herein, under the aforesaid sections and disposed of both the petitions. Now this order has been assailed in the present revision petition by the accused petitioners. Shri H.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehementally argued that there were no reasonable grounds to frame the charges against any of the petitioners and the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) has gone wrong and not rightly appreciated the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. and documents appended thereto. He further argued that there are no grounds even to presume the complicity of the petitioners in the crime alleged. Contra Shri Janesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri J.S.Guleria, learned Law officer for respondent No.2 have supported the impugned order. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record. As a matter of fact, respondent No.1 Smt.Rattni Devi had filed a complaint under the aforesaid sections in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una on 6.6.1997 alleging that she is a tenant over the land mentioned in para (1) of her complaint. She is the daughter-in-law of Shri Dhania. Shri Dhania has filed Suit No.197/82 seeking declaration that he had become the owner of the said land, by virtue of section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. On 3 8.12.1982 the aforesaid suit was dismissed in default. Shri Dhania again filed a Civil Suit No.86/85, seeking permanent injunction, qua the same land, which was dismissed as having been abated on his death on 25.8.1997. The complainant succeeded him as her husband had pre-deceased his father Dhania. It was alleged that the land in question is in her possession and is located within the municipal limits of Una which is very costly land. Smt. Asha Devi accused-petitioner got tempted to get its possession, thus she hatched a conspiracy with other co-accused / petitioners and managed to get rapat No. 138 dated 3.12.96 entered in the rojnamcha vakiati of patwar circle, Una in favour of minors Manoj Kumar, Praful Kumar s/o Gajinder Paul s/o Daya Ram, with a motive to delete her name and then to oust her from the possession as tenant by illegal means, without any legal order. The record was fabricated by the accused petitioners herein by hatching a conspiracy. Vide order dated 6.6.1997 the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (Una) forwarded the complaint to the SHO concerned under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for taking further action. FIR was lodged and after the investigation the challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondents. I have perused the challan and documents appended thereto, it is apparent that the first suit filed by Dhania the predecessor-in-interest of the complainant seeking declaration was dismissed in default. Second suit, 4 qua the same land, for permanent injunction got abated on account of his death. However, both the aforesaid suits were not decided on merits nor there was any order passed in favour of the accused Asha Rani or the minors. Status of the complainant as tenant remained unchanged. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una in para (7) of its orders that the cumulative effect of the said decisions rendered by the courts negativate the case of the complainant and her predecessor about their possession as tenant over the land, is not correct. The factual scenario, which emerges from the documents on record is, the petitioner Smt. Asha Devi had moved an application on behalf of Manoj and Parful minors, as next friend, for seeking correction of the revenue entries qua the land in question in the court of S.D.O (C) Una on 17.8.1996 wherein she had given reference of the civil suits filed by Shri Dhania and informed regarding its dismissal and prayed for entering the name of the minors in the column of possession in the revenue record. This application was sent, in original, to the Tehsildar for appropriate action, who in turn forwarded the same to the Field Kanungo for inquiry and report. The Field Kanungo further sent the said application in original to the Patwari vide endorsement dated 10.9.1996 and Patwari Halqua after going through the orders passed in civil suits submitted its detailed report, interpreting the orders of the court in his own way and sought guidance in the following words: 5 “vr% ;fn mfpr le>k tkos rks bu nkoksa esa QSlyk dk vey nzken dkxtkr eky esa djus dh btktr nh tkuh mfpr gS A vU;Fkk ekxZ n’kZu fd;k tkos fd D;k jDok [kqndk’r fd;k tkuk gS A ;k ugh A fjiksZV lsok esa vkxkeh vkns’k gsrw is’k gS A sd/- iVokjh ldZy Åuk 20@09@1996” The aforesaid report was submitted by the Patwari to the Field Kanungo. The Field Kanungo sent the same to the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar accorded his permission to change the entries in the name of the minors, as per the decisions of the courts. He also appeared to have not applied his mind to the facts of the case. The orders of Tehsildar percolated down to the Patwari in the same channel for compliance and the Patwari concerned recorded change in the Roj-namcha and after its compliance the file was sent to the SDO (C) following the same route. From the above it is manifest that the procedure adopted for correction of the revenue entries is absolutely wrong and foreign to law. Further, the change was ordered without hearing the complainant, adversely effected party and the orders passed by the civil court were incorrectly interpreted by the revenue officers. However, it is pointed out that the Field Kanungo acted as a post office and the Patwari made the compliance of the order of Tehsildar. The Tehsildar 6 did not apply his mind and Patwari had interpreted the orders in his own way and by complying the orders of Tehsildar made it handle to record the rapat. Thus, from the facts aforesaid, which had surfaced during the investigation of the case, do high light the highly wrong procedure adopted by the revenue agency to effect the change in the revenue record by passing the provisions of law applicable to it. However, in my opinion from the facts on record, prima-facie no criminal offence as alleged is made out, as the Patwari had complied with the orders of the Tehsildar and Tehsildar is not an accused in this case. In view of this, the order of framing the charge under challenge passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Una is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. In result, the revision petition is allowed and the petitioners stands discharged from the offences alleged against them. However, respondent No.2 is at liberty to proceed against the erring revenue officers/officials departmentally for the serious lapses and irregularities committed by them in discharge of their duties. July 21, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D) 7