CRM No. M-18099 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-18099 of 2008 Date of decision:- 12.11.2010 Ram Mehar, Naib Tehsildar and another. ......Petitioners Vs Raghbir son of Gaje Singh, resident of village Jatipur, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat. ......Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) This application has been filed by accused-petitioners No. 1 and 2 namely Ram Mehar and Jai Kishan for quashing of criminal complaint No. 209/08 dated 18.07.2006 presently pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat. The two accused-petitioners are revenue officials of the State of Haryana. The case of the respondent-complainant, in the complaint petition filed, is that on the basis of a Court decree dated 01.06.1990 his name was entered in the revenue record in respect of land covered by khewat No. 242/223, khatoni No. 282, Rectangle No. 70, killa No. 7/3 (1-3), 8(7-6), situated at village Pasina Kalan, Tehsil Bapoli, District Panipat. According to the complainant the accused No. 1 and CRM No. M-18099 of 2008 2 2 in collusion with the accused No. 3 by order dated 22.09.2005 had entered the name of the third accused in the said revenue record without any notice to the complainant. Accordingly, it is alleged that the accused have committed offences under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC as well as Sections 466, 467, 468, 469 and 471 IPC. After the initial examination of the complainant on oath, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat by order dated 25.11.2006 had summoned all the three accused to face trial. Aggrieved the accused-petitioners No. 1 and 2 have challenged the said proceedings questioning the maintainability of the complaint case registered against them as well as the order dated 25.11.2006 summoning them in the said case. The admitted case of the complainant is that his name was entered in the revenue record on the basis of a Court decree dated 01.06.1990. The complainant claims to be one Raghbir Singh son of Gaje Singh which name is entered in the mutation record enclosed as Annexure P5. The said document recites that the entry of the name of Raghbir Singh son of Gaje Singh has been made on the basis of the Court decree dated 01.06.1990. A reading of the Court decree dated 01.06.1990 (Annexure P4) would go to show that it is the defendant No. 2 in the Civil Suit No. 757/1990 who was declared to be in possession of land comprised in khewat No. 242/223, khatoni No. 282, Rectangle No. 70, killa No. 6/3/1-3, 8/7-6. The defendant No. 2 is one Raghbir Singh son of Fateh Singh (Accused No. 3). The CRM No. M-18099 of 2008 3 correction in the mutation register (Annexure P7) shows that instead of Raghbir Singh son of Gaje Singh the name Raghbir Singh son of Fateh Singh has been corrected and entered in the said record. The basis of the correction is again stated to be the Court decree dated 01.06.1990. If the decree of the Civil Court with regard to the land was in favour of Raghbir Singh son of Fateh Singh (defendant No. 2) the initial entry in Annexure P5 was a mistake which was corrected subsequently i.e. on 22.09.2005 (Annexure P7). From the above it will be crystal clear that the accused- petitioners No. 1 and 2 had acted bonafide and on the basis of the Court decree. No offence under any of the Sections of the Indian Penal Code as has been alleged, therefore, would be attracted in respect of the actions of the accused-petitioners No. 1 and 2 in correcting the mutation register. The proceedings in criminal complaint No. 209/08 dated 18.07.2006 presently pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, therefore, will have to be construed to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, the said proceedings in so far as the accused- petitioners are concerned including the order dated 25.11.2006 summoning them shall stand set aside and quashed. Criminal Miscellaneous application, therefore, shall stand allowed as indicated above. (RANJAN GOGOI) 12.11.2010 JUDGE Amodh