Krishna Kanahiya Rajhans vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.K. Sinha, J.—The Petitioner Krishna Kanahiya Rajhans has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of his entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. C-72 of 2006 including the order dated 27.2.2008 by which the learned SDJM Gumla found a prima facie case under Sections 119/217/218/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the Petitioner and the case is pending before the SDJM Gumla.

The complainant alleged in his complaint Case No. C-72 of 2006 that he had purchased a land appertaining to Khata No. 4, plot No. 890 total area 2.70 acres of Mauza Gumla by two separate sale deeds viz No. 889/53 dated 30.5.1953 and another sale deed No. 1295 of 1953 dated 24.9.1953 from one Jageshwar Prasad Singh .After purchasing he filed a petition for mutation which was numbered as Mutation Case No. 78 R27/68-69 and the same was allowed in the office of Anchal Office, Gumla. It was alleged by the complainant that the rent receipts were jointly issued for the land along with other lands in the name of his father and when he applied for separate rent receipts in his name before the Circle Officer Gumla, he gathered that the Petitioner ,who was the Circle Officer of Gumla, allowed the mutation in connivance with the vendee Monohar Kumar Singh in his favour acting beyond his jurisdiction, though the rent receipts were being issued from for the last 53 years. The detail of facts has been given impleading the different accused persons in this case.

Mr. Mohit Prakash, the learned Counsel assisted by Suresh Kumar Advocate at the out set submitted that the Petitioner is admittedly an Anchal Adhikari under whose signature and seal the mutation order was passed in favour of the Applicant after following all the procedural rules. The SDJM without obtaining the sanction order u/s 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure from the competent authority directed the summons to be issued against him. Complaint was filed by the complainant on 1.3.2006 and thereafter he applied seeking permission from the concerned department for criminal prosecution of the Petitioner. In pursuance of the complaint the Addl. Collector, Gumla made inquiry in this regard and after inquiry he did not find that a suitable prima facie case has been made out against the Petitioner as to recommend for sanction u/s 197 Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it was advised that the complainant may move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. The Under Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms vide letter No. 1300 dated 2.4.2007 under instruction flatly refused and communicated that no case was made out for taking action against the Circle Officer i.e. the Petitioner herein. Mr. Mohit Kumar, the learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioner was a public servant u/s 27 of the Indian Penal Code as well as ''Judge'' defined u/s 19 of the said Code. The sanction u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required for prosecution as the order of mutation passed by the Petitioner cannot be deemed to be recorded in his personal capacity or for his personal gains. As a matter of fact, Circle Officer holds a power of Presiding Officer of his Civil Court as enshrined u/s 25 of the Bihar Tenants'' Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act,1973 which speaks:

Authorities under this Act to have power of Civil Court--

While making enquiries and conducting proceeding under this Act, the Collector, the land Reforms Deputy Collector the Anchal Adhikari {xxx} shall have the same powers in matter of admission of evidence, summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oaths, compelling the production of documents and award of costs, as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908)

Therefore, in view of such protection given to the Petitioner his criminal prosecution would tantamount to miscarriage of justice and the order impugned by which summons was directed to be issued against him by the SDJM without obtaining sanction u/s 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure may be set aside.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner that the order passed by the Petitioner in the mutation case cannot be held to be passed in his personal capacity or for his personal gains and that he holds the powers of the Presiding Officer of the Civil Court as defined u/s 25 of the Act referred to herein before. Therefore, I find that SDJM Gumla without applying his judicial mind and without obtaining sanction u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed summons to be issued against the Petitioner which cannot be sustained under the law. There appears merit, accordingly this petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 27.2.2008 including the entire criminal proceeding of the Petitioner Krishna Kanahiya Rajhans is quashed in C-72 of 2006 pending before SDJM, Gumla.