Keshav Singh Tomar & ors. vs State of M.P. & anr.

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.460/2011 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and all other consequential proceedings.

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that a Government lease was granted in favour of Imrat S/o Panna Mehtar in respect of agricultural land bearing survey No.1/1/17 area 0.500 hectares and from the year 1984-85 it was so recorded in the revenue records. The name of the first wife of Imrat was Shantibai who died in the year 2000 whereas according to the prosecution case Imrat died in the year 2002. The elder brother of Imrat namely Raghunath expired in the year 1999. It was alleged that the name of the wife of Raghunath was Munnibai who after the death of Shantibai, the first wife of Imrat, started residing with Imrat as her husband Raghunath had already expired. After the death of Imrat in the year 2002, the name of Shantibai was mutated in the revenue records. It was alleged that in fact Shantibai (Munnibai) was not the original wife of Imrat but she was wife of elder brother of Imrat namely Raghunath. However, Munnibai after residing with Imrat started claiming herself to be Shantibai. The mutation of the name of Shantibai in the revenue record was done by the then Patwari Lachhiram Sahu who did not take this aspect into consideration that in fact Shantibai, the original wife of Imrat had already expired in the year 2002 and the lady who is residing with Imrat is Munnibai, the wife of his elder brother, Raghunath. Lachhiram Sahu, the then Patwari has already expired. The said land remained recorded in the name of Shantibai widow of Imrat. On 20.2.2008 Shantibai (Munnibai) filed an application before the Court of Collector, Guna seeking permission to sell the land. The matter was sent to the Tahsildar Guna for submitting its report. Smt. Shantibai (Munnibai) filed an affidavit before the Tahsildar Guna. The applicant, who was working as Patwari at the relevant time submitted his report on 11.4.2008 and the allegation is that he too did not bring this fact to the knowledge of the Collector that in fact the application has been filed by Munnibai and not Shantibai. Accordingly, the Collector granted permission to sell the land by order dated 26.5.2008 and on the basis of said permission Shantibai (Munnibai) executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma on 2.7.2008 and the necessary mutations have been done in the revenue record.

Thus, it is the prosecution case that after the death of Imrat, the then Patwari Lachhiram Sahu wrongly mutated the name of Munnibai by showing her to be Shantibai widow of Imrat whereas she was the wife of Raghunath, the elder brother of Imrat. Accordingly, FIR on 28.9.2011 was registered against the applicant and other persons. In short the allegation against the applicant is that he also did not bring this fact to the knowledge of the superior authorities that Munnibai is not Shantibai and the name of Munnibai has been wrongly mutated in the revenue record showing her to be Shantibai.

As there was nothing on record to show that Shantibai widow of Imrat had died in the year 2000, therefore, this Court by order dated 11.1.2017 granted permission to the State counsel to seek instructions with regard to the death of Shantibai in the year 2000 and to obtain necessary authentic documents in that regard. After several adjournments, the State has filed the enquiry report. According to this enquiry report, it is submitted by the police that the name of the first wife of Imrat was Shantibai who had expired prior to the death of Imrat Mehtar. After her death, Imrat Mehtar kept another lady as his wife and she too was renamed as Shantibai. During the enquiry it was revealed that after the death of Imrat, the second wife of Imrat namely Smt. Sheelabai @ Shantibai has remarried to one Chanda Mehtar. The statement of Sheelabai @ Shantibai at present wife of Chanda Mehtar residing at village Tilikheda, P.S. Bajranggarh at present village Jamra, P.S. Myana, District Guna has been recorded and who has stated that after the death of first wife namely Shantibai, Imrat performed second marriage with her and she was renamed as Shantibai. The member of society started calling her as Shantibai. Two daughters namely Reena and Radha were born from Imrat and after the death of Imrat she has remarried with Ramcharan @ Chanda Mehtar. One daughter has also born from Ramcharan @ Chanda Mehtar.

Accordingly, the police came to a conclusion that Smt. Shantibai W/o Imrat Mehtar had expired about 16 to 17 years prior to the death of Imrat and after the death of Shantibai the lessee Imrat remarried with Sheela @ Shantibai Mehtar and the correct name of the second wife of Imrat is Sheela Mehtar but in village Tilikheda she is known as Sheela @ Shantibai. Thus, the police came to a conclusion that after the death of Shantibai the first wife of Imrat, the second wife of Imrat was also known as Shantibai and she is still alive.

Be that whatever it may.

The crux of the matter is that the name of first wife of Imrat was Shantibai. After the death of first wife, Imrat performed second marriage with Sheelabai and renamed her as Shantibai who is still alive. Undisputedly the name of Shantibai widow of Imrat was mutated in the revenue record by one Lachhiram Sahu. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant had mutated the name of Shantibai widow of Imrat in the revenue record. The only allegation against him is that when an application was filed in the year 2008 before the Collector, Guna seeking permission to sell the land, the present applicant who at the relevant time was posted as Patwari submitted its report merely on the basis of the revenue record and did not bring to the notice of the concerned authorities that Shantibai widow of Imrat is in fact Sheelabai. Once it is found that the name of Shantibai W/o Imrat was already mutated in the revenue record and even according to the police report the second wife of Imrat was also known as Shantibai and she is still alive, thus, this Court is of the view that even if the entire allegations made against the applicant are accepted in toto, then there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had deliberately did not bring it to the notice of the Collector that Shantibai W/o Imrat, whose name is recorded in the revenue records is in fact is the second wife of Imrat. As there is no allegation that the applicant mutated the name of second wife of Imrat as Shantibai widow of Imrat, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed any offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC. It is clear that he had simply forwarded the report to the Collector on the basis of the revenue records. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that even if the entire allegations are accepted in toto, no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC is made out against the applicant.

This Court by order dated 2.7.2012 had stayed the further proceedings in Crime No.460/2011. Because of the interim order passed by this Court, the charge sheet could not be filed. Under these circumstances, the FIR in Crime No. 460/2011 registered for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC against the applicant is hereby quashed.

The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.