IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 15/2006 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Ram Vilas Yadav …….Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal ……Respondent Mr. S.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the respondent. 7th September, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the prayer has been advanced to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 696/2005, State v. Ram Vilas & Others, under Section 420, 466, 471, 120B IPC pertaining to PS Barkot, District Uttarkashi, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Brief Holder for the State, it transpires that the accused applicant Ram Vilas Yadav was posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate for some of the period during the decade between 1990 to 2000. He remained posted so in Tehsil Barkot of District Uttarkashi and during his tenure of almost two years, it is alleged that with the collusion of his Reader and concerning Clerk, the applicant purportedly got instituted several false and fabricated mutation/declaratory proceedings under Section 229B of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and as a result thereof, he passed the orders of mutation in respect of the innumerable large pieces of land, which were either in possession of some of these persons (on whose behalf these false cases were purportedly instituted) or otherwise. Virtually, these proceedings were never actually 2 conducted in the court, and straightaway the orders were passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The concerning Clerk was bound to follow his orders and he, accordingly, executed the directions of the SDM passed in those false cases and registered the names of such persons in the relevant revenue records. 3. This entire scandal was revealed later, and on the direction of District Magistrate, Uttarkashi, the matter was first enquired preliminarily by another Sub Divisional Magistrate, who found substance in the allegations. So, the First Information Report was lodged on 9.1.1998. 4. The matter was investigated and it appears that Final Report was proposed to be submitted thrice, but on the suggestions made by the Prosecuting/Senior Prosecuting Officer of the State to make further investigation on the points indicated by him, chargesheet was filed against the SDM Ram Vilas Yadav (applicant) and Ravi Lal Sah, Clerk concerned upon enquiry on the fourth occasion. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that since the allegations were without any substance, so the Final Reports were proposed to be submitted thrice. Besides, the Prosecuting/Senior Prosecuting Officer (whosoever he may be) did not have any power to send back for the investigation afresh, as stated above. This argument has been controverted by the learned State Counsel, who argued that none of the three Final Reports was filed before the court concerned and the Senior Prosecuting Officer was well within his powers to give suggestions and point out the shortcomings in the investigation conducted so far. 3 6. On perusal of the short paragraphs (briefly written in whimsical fashion) of all the three Final Reports, this Court is of the view that the first three Investigation Officers had perhaps proposed to submit those three Final Reports summarily, without going deep into controversy involved in the matter. It is pertinent to mention here that accused Ram Vilas Yadav, being the Sub Divisional Magistrate posted in the district, was a powerful officer, and the possibilities cannot be ruled out that he might have had influenced the Investigation Officers. Truly, the Final Report, once submitted, can either be accepted or rejected or sent for further investigation by the Magistrate concerned only, but the Senior Prosecuting Officer, while scrutinizing the entire investigation and before forwarding it to the Court through Circle Officer of the police, was well within his powers to make his suggestions and point out the shortcomings of the investigation, which have been left either deliberately or mistakenly by the Investigating Officers. So, there was nothing wrong on the part of the prosecuting agency in sending for further investigation in the matter with certain suggestions and indications. 7. As regards the want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, it is the established principle of law that such a sanction is needed to prosecute a Government Servant, who is removable by or with the sanction of the State Government, only when his act complained of, has the reasonable nexus with his official duties. The entire scandal of forgery, fabrication, institution of false cases, making the orders thereupon and putting a number of persons into title of the vast area of different pieces of land is the patent abuse of the powers which are inherent in the authority of an SDM. 8. The learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant has cited the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal 4 Miscellaneous Case No. 481/2006, Ram Vilas Yadav v. Jai Prakash & Others. But on perusal of the above judgment, rendered by the Single Judge of this Court on 25.2.2011, this Court is of the opinion that the said judgment is of no avail to adjudicate the instant matter, which is in question under this petition. 9. The entire allegations against the applicant are based on the documentary evidence, which are substantially considerable during the trial before the Magistrate and the criminal proceedings, which has to be advanced as a result of the submission of the chargesheet, cannot be quashed on the basis of the arguments as advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is bereft of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay order granted by this Court on 4.1.2006 stands vacated. 11. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 7.9.2011 Prabodh