Safi Khan vs Abdul Rehman

Kuldip Singh, J.—This order will dispose of CRM No. 14312 of 2014 for condonation of delay in filing the present application for grant of leave to appeal and CRM No. A-729-MA of 2014 filed u/s 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.

It is necessary to summarize the facts of the case. Kapoori widow of late Budhi was owner in possession of land measuring 8 kanals 16 marlas. She was stated to be issueless widow. According to complainant Safi Khan, after death of Kapoori, her estate would be devolved upon the complainant but the accused-respondents in collusion with Revenue officials/Officers got incorporated mutation No. 644, dated 11.09.1986 in their favour. Even though, Subhan Khan father of the complainant was alive and was entitled to inherit the estate of Kapoori. They also got prepared fictitious jamabandi showing themselves to be the legal heirs. It is stated that after the death of Kapoori, the land should be devolved upon Subhan Khan. One of the accused Abdul Rehman is the Lambardar of the village, who provided wrong pedigree table. In this way, accused have committed an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

After recording preliminary evidence, the complaint was dismissed. However, the order was set aside by the Appellate Court.

Thereafter, the accused were summoned and pre-charge evidence was recorded. Thereafter, accused were served with charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Thereafter, some more witnesses were examined.

In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded false implication and produced some documents in defence.

After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, accused and going through the file, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused from the charges framed against them.

After going through the file, we are of the view that the complaint is groundless. According to the complainant himself, Kapoori was widow and died issueless. Mutation No. 644 was entered on 11.09.1986 in favour of the accused, even though, Subhan Khan father of the complainant was alive and entitled to inherit the estate of Kapoori. It comes out that mutation is entered by the Revenue Authorities in discharge of their official duties and same is the position with jamabandi. There is no question of forgery in any of the said documents.

The plea of the complainant appears that wrong entry was made in the mutation. It is to be noted that according to the complainant, his father Subhan Khan was entitled to succeed Kapoori. However, from 1986 till 2005, when the present complaint was filed i.e. for 19 years Subhan Khan did not challenge the correctness of said mutation No. 644 dated 11.09.1986. In the presence of his father, the complainant was not entitled to succeed Kapoori as he is claiming his rights through his father. Once his father did not challenge mutation as incorrect, complainant cannot challenge the same being incorrect. In any case, there is no forgery of mutation or jamabandi. The trial court also recorded the finding that complainant Sufi Khan filed a civil suit, which was compromised before the civil court, vide order dated 14.01.2011 (Ex. D2). The suit was withdrawn by the complainant vide statement Ex. D3. Now, complainant cannot take recourse to the criminal law after having availed the civil remedy and compromising the civil dispute with the accused. It also comes out that Subhan Khan father of the complainant is not heard to be alive. It being so, the present case is nothing but misuse of process of court. Therefore, CRM No. 14312 of 2014 for condonation of delay in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal is declined. Consequently, the present application for grant of leave to appeal stands dismissed.