Rajendra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.84/2010 registered under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC against the petitioner

along with some other co-accused persons.

One Prabhulal lodged this FIR No.84/2010 stating that he had purchased a house from Anita Gadia through petitioner Rajendra by a registered sale

deed on the assurance that house was constructed on the land belonging to Anita Gadia. Later, he received notice in the year 2007 claiming that the

house was constructed over the Nazul land, therefore, the complainant felt cheated and approached the police.

Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that earlier he had filed a criminal revision against order framing charge, which was

registered as Cr.R. No.1143/2013. The same was withdrawn vide order dated 12.02.2014 and was dismissed, accordingly.

In the meantime, husband of Anita Gadia, Vijendra S/o Shantilal Gadia agitated the matter upto Revenue Board. Vide order dated 09.03.2015

(Annexure P/3) Revenue Board decided that the land in question was not Nazul land, therefore, the petitioner filed M.Cr.C. No.11510/2016

(Annexure P/4) for quashing of FIR. During hearing of this petition, learned Public Prosecutor made a statement at bar that the order of the Revenue

Board is challenged by the State by filing an appeal, therefore, the petitioner withdrew his petition and the same was dismissed vide order dated

03.10.2017, but no such appeal was filed by the State against the order of Revenue Board. This fact is clear by order dated 13.07.2018 passed in

W.P. No.6904/2018 (Annexure P/5) whereby the writ petition filed by the State against the order of Revenue Board was dismissed for non

compliance of peremptory order. Thus, it is clear that Counsel representing the State had made an incorrect or false statement in the hearing of

M.Cr.C. No.11510/2016 on 03.10.2017 that State has filed any appeal against order of Revenue Board. However, the current status is that the writ

petition filed by the State challenging the order of Revenue Board dated 09.03.2015 has been dismissed and the order of Revenue Board has attained

finality, therefore, now it is settled that the land sold by the Colonizer to the complainant through the petitioner is a private land, therefore, there

remains no charge against the petitioner and pendency of the prosecution is abuse of the authority of the Court, therefore, the same be quashed.

Though, the facts mentioned by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have not been challenged by the learned Public Prosecutor, but after going

through the entire record it cannot be accepted at this stage that the order of the Revenue Board has attained finality. The State has still claiming that

the land belongs to the Nazul and several judicial remedies exist in favour of the State. Therefore, it would be premature to drop the proceedings

initiated on the basis of FIR No.84/2010.

After going through the entire records, I do not find it proper to quash the FIR or the subsequent proceedings taken pursuant thereto at this stage,

therefore, the petition is dismissed.

Petitioner is free to take appropriate action in accordance with law in respect of any incorrect statement made by learned Public Prosecutor on

03.10.2017 in M.Cr.C. No.11510 of 2016.