Pushpa Devi and Others vs State of M.P.

Alok Verma, J—This application is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR registered at Police Station - Agar, District - Agar in Crime No. 364/2013 under sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120 of IPC.

The brief facts giving rise to this application are that respondent No. 2, who was posted as a Revenue Inspector, Circle - 1, Agar, took a letter written by Tehsildar Agar, dated 13.08.2013 addressed to Station Incharge, Police Station - Agar. In the letter, it was stated by Tehsildar that the land bearing survey No. 67/3 was originally recorded in the name of Mohsin Ali. Said Mohsin Ali sold the land on 05.05.1990 to Smt. Vidya Jain W/o Vimal Jain in which total area was shown as 031 Are. Subsequent to this, the land was sold to the present applicants by said Vidya Jain on 03.03.2006 by registered sale deed bearing No. 1024. Part of the same survey number was also sold by another sale deed bearing No. 1025 dated 30.03.2006 by Smt. Vidya Jain to Prem Narayan and Gyaneshwari Devi. In the letter, it was mentioned that parties to the sale deed and the officers at Sub Registrar Office deliberately executed the sale deed for land showing area much larger than what is recorded in the revenue record in relation to survey No. 67/3.

On this letter, Crime No. 364/2013 was registered by Police Station - Agar, District - Agar (then District - Shajapur on 14.08.2013).

According to the present applicants, when they detected the mistake that area of the land was wrongly mentioned in the sale deed, the seller and purchaser of the land entered into compromise and then, they got the correction deed executed by which, the area was corrected matching the area of survey No. 67/3 which was 0.027 Are. According to them, this is only a bonafide mistake and it was a civil matter and unnecessarily criminal case was registered by the police.

Respondent No. 2 Arvind, who took the letter to the police station filed reply in favour of the applicants saying that it was bonafide mistake and the mistake was corrected by execution of correction deed, however, the then Tehsildar insisted that FIR be filed and he was under compulsion being subordinate to him to take the letter to the police station.

Respondent No. 1 also filed a written reply through Sub Divisional Officer, Police, Agar. In its reply, it is stated that present applicants got the sale deed executed showing the area of the land much larger than actual area of survey No. 67/3 and thereafter, No Objection Certificate was granted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department. Necessary mutation was also incorporated by the revenue officers. The land was also diverted by the then Sub Divisional Officer. In para 7 of the reply, it was stated that present applicants also obtained permission for construction of the above mentioned land and they have started construction on the land.

In this case, objection was filed on behalf of one Anand S/o Purushottam Goyan, who is totally stranger to the aforementioned transaction and is a member of public. According to the Objector, he is a member of public and a social worker. He has also right to intervene and take part in the proceedings of the present case.

Counsel for the applicants, however, vehemently opposed and submits that it is criminal proceeding and the Objector being stranger to the proceeding, has no locus standee to participate in the proceeding. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Thakur Ram Vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 911 : (1966) CriLJ 700 : (1966) 2 SCR 740 , in which, it was held that the criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Indu Bala and Others Vs. Delhi Administration, (1990) ILR Delhi 84 , in the case of All India Democratic Women Association Vs. State of Madras reported in LAWS(MAD)-1997-9-54 and in the case of Praveen Malhotra Vs. State, (1990) CriLJ 2184 : (1990) 41 DLT 418 : (1990) 2 DMC 82 : (1990) 18 DRJ 192 .

Counsel for the Objector, however, submits that the principle is now well settled that private person has locus standee to take part in the criminal proceedings, when it involves large amount of public money or large chunk of the government land. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Another, AIR 2012 SC 1185 : (2012) CriLJ 1519 : (2012) 2 JT 203 : (2012) 1 RCR(Criminal) 720 : (2012) 2 SCALE 12 : (2012) 3 SCC 64 : (2012) AIRSCW 1249 : (2012) 1 Supreme 577 .

However, in this case, the principle laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court was that a private person can file a private complaint under Prevention of Correction Act.

In this case, it is nowhere laid down that in the case instituted on charge-sheet filed by the police, total stranger has locus standee. This apart, counsel for the applicants has filed judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy and others Vs. Raju Thr. Member Juvenile Justice passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1953 of 2013. In this case, a Public Interest Litigation was filed after the ghastly incident in Delhi that took place on 16.12.2012 in which, six accused persons raped a girl in a moving bus. One of the accused was stated to be below 18 years and then, Public Interest Litigation was filed by the applicant seeking direction of Hon''ble the Supreme Court to incorporate suitable amendment in the Juvenile Justice Act making such offence of heinous nature beyond the purview of the Act. Hon''ble the Supreme Court held that in this case, since the relief sought would affect number of juveniles facing trial in the country the applicant was permitted to raise the issue.

However, in this case, no such condition exists and, therefore, the principle laid down in the aforementioned case, cannot be applied in this case. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Objector, who is a stranger to these proceedings, cannot be allowed to take part in this case.

Reverting back to the merits of the present case, main contention of counsel for the applicants is that they have corrected the mistake which took place bonafide and also executed correction deeds, thereafter.

However, taking the reply filed by the State into consideration, it appears that immediately after the execution of the sale deed, necessary steps were taken for diversion of the land also for obtaining various No Objection Certificates from various authorities and thereafter, the present applicants started construction on the land. Whether, this position is true or not, can only be assessed after recording of the evidence. This apart, with the sale deed in question, copy of which is filed alongwith the application, map is filed, in which total dimensions of the land is shown. Normally, in case of revenue land, trace maps are filed. However, in this case, map is filed in which all the four dimensions of the land was shown and total area of the land comes to 938.78 meters. This cannot be a bonafide mistake. Subsequently, when the correction deed was executed with the correction deed, the trace map was enclosed. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that initial mistake was a bonafide mistake. In case of deceit under section 420 of IPC, there should be an intention to deceit from the very inception. If it is proved that the mistake is not bonafide then, charges are made out. This apart, there are also various correspondence from Municipal Corporation, Indore, showing that there was some effort for grabbing of government land under the garb of the aforesaid sale deed.

Accordingly, at this stage, in my considered opinion, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR using power conferred to this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. This application is devoid of merit, liable to be dismissed and is hereby, dismissed.

C.c. as per rules.