BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH ATBILASPUR (G.G.) Cr. IVI. P. No. ,^2 O of 2011 PETITIONER J.P. Sahu, S/o. Moti Lal Sahu, aged about 51 years, Revenue Inspector (Bhu-Abhilakh), R/o Village Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ....^&tl2:'.2- ^^^M^--' :1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station- Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Rukhmani Bai, aged about 37 years,[ W/o Sakharam, Caste-Suryawanshi,,1 R/o Amoda, Tahsil & P.S.-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. Kamla Bai Goyal, W/o Mohanf Suryawanshi, aged about 47 yearsj R/o Khadfadipara, Janjgir, P.S.-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) PETITION UNDERSECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE v^w^1- o^--'^ ?a .-/.: 4 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bte Shri IWanindra IWohan Shrivastava, J. Cr.IW.P.No.520/2011 Petitioner Resppndents J.P.Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Petition ynder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Present:- Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 16-09-2011) Heard on admission. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.380 of 2011 registered at Potice Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa. 3. Case of the prosecution, as disclosed from the FIR is that a piece of land has been sold by Neetkanth by fatseiy impersonating his wife as Kamta Bai (Joint Holder). Further case is that a consent letter of Kamla Bai was forged, whereas Kamla Bai has never given any consent. It is also alleged in the FIR that in order to sell the land, false document of Kishtabandi Khatoni Aasamiwar was prepared by the petitioner, who was Revenue Inspector, on 04-03-2010, with counter signatures of Neelkanth and forged signature of Kamla, which disclosed Neelkanth and Kamla Devi alone as Bhoofnfewam; whereas one Sakharam, the 3 joint owner had died and his legal heirs were not on record. Thus, by preparing the false document of Kishtabandi Khatoni Aasamiwar by the petitioner, which is otherwise required to be prepared by the Patwari in ordinary course of business, used the forged consent letter of Kamla Bai to sell out the land, ofwhich, Kamla Bai and legal heirs of Sakha Ram, were also joint owners and thereby depriving them from their property. ^ L K ^ '^. .'•^""'^^ '% ^ Z-—2S''' 2L. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged commission of offence. He submits that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he prepared the 16-point information in Kishtabandi Khatoni Aasamiwar. It is submitted that the petitioner has not issued such document and the document contains forged signature ofthe petitioner.It is also submitted that when it was revealed that such sale deed has been executed, Patwari of the concerned area submitted a letter in the office of Deputy Registrar informing that by using forged seal and signature of the Revenue Inspector, the document has been prepared. Learned counsel submitted that forged 16-point information has been prepared, on the basis of which, sale deed has been registered. Learned counsel also submitted that when the petitioner came to know that some forged documents have been prepared, he also represented to the authorities by sending his specimen signature that he has not issued the 16 point information and his signatures are forged, but the police, without making due enquiry in that regard or verifying the signatures, has proceeded to register the offence against the petitioner, which is abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the said document alleged to be issued by the petitioner was otherwise valid for only two months, and therefore, the Registrar ought not to have acted upon the said document and register the sale deed. Further submission is that in the entries made in Form B-1 attached along with 16-point information also contains incorrect details with regard to the area ofthe land and Khasra Number. 5. In the FIR, it has been alleged that forged consent letter of Kamla Bai was prepared and wife of Neelkanth was shown as Kamla Bai. The case stated in the FIR is also to the effect that in order to facilitate sale of the immovable property, 16-point information was obtained by Neelkanth from the petitioner, and at that relevant point of time, he was Revenue Inspector. The said document has shown name of Neelkanth and kamla Bai as joint holder whereas in the revenue records, the name of Sakharam has also been shown as third share holder and after death of Sakharam, his legal heirs were not brought on record and to cause serious prejudice to Kamla Bai and heirs of Sakharam, 16-Point information was prepared, which along with the forged consent letter, facilitated execution of sale deed. 16-Point information was issued by the petitioner to facilitate the sale deed, which in normal course of business, has to be prepared by Patwari of the concerned area. The allegation against the present petitioner is that in order to facilitate sale the land, he has issued 16 point information, in which, name of Neelkanth and Kamla Bai were shown as joint holders, without showing the name of Sakharam or his legal heirs. Though, submission of petitioner is that the said document does not contain his signatures, it is a matter of investigation. At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations contained in the FIR did not make out any case to allow further investigation against the petitioner in the matter. The petitioner was a Revenue Inspector. The revenue records, which have been placed on record, would show that along with Neelkanth, kamla Devi, Sakharam was also shown as joint holder of the land, yet in the 16 point information alleged to be given by the petitioner, the name of Sakharam or his legal heirs does not find place. Moreover, 16-point information, which issaid to be signed and issued by the petitioner, contains counter signature of Neelkanth and Kamla Bai, Whereas Kamla Bai has specifically denied having given any consent or having involved in the fraudulent act of sale. Therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR does not make out any prima facie case to register offence against the petitioner and to carry out investigation. At this nascent stage, 1 am not inclined to interfere by coming to any definite condusion that the petitioner is involved or not involved in the commission of offence. 6. In view of foregoing, I am not inclined to admit the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. —— Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava s Judge S