Somati Devi @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner Smt. Somati Devi has approached this court seeking quashing of the FIR No.381/2013

registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 13(i)(d) and 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with

Section 120-B IPC.

One Gurmel Singh lodged a complaint in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in the year 2012 for the offences under

Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and Sections 161, 162, 167, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner being the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat 10 KD,

Panachayat Samiti Gharsana, Vijendra Godara, Patwari, Patwar Mandal 10 KD and one Mukhtyar Singh son of Nanak Singh. The complainant

alleged that he had purchased a chunk of agricultural land from Nanak Ram Bawari through a sale deed executed on 26.04.2012. The complainant

applied for mutation of the land in furtherance of the registered sale and after thorough enquiry, the accused persons accepted the mutation application

and the requisite entry was made in the Revenue record. However, later on a dispute arose between Mukhtyar Singh and Nanak Ram in relation to

the same land, on which civil proceedings were undertaken and the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh directed maintenance of status

quo in the record as well as regarding possession of the land in question by order dated 21.05.2012 and the said order was allegedly communicated to

the Tehsildar, Gharsana at 12.30 pm. on the very same date. The Tehsildar, Gharsana in turn, communicated the said order to Vijendra Godara,

Patwari through an official letter. However, despite the stay order, accused persons conspired with each other and with a sheer fraudulent design to

give undue benefit to a person named Mukhtyar Singh, the mutation entry approved and recorded in the complainant’s name was rescinded by a

resolution drawn in back date without providing an opportunity of hearing to the complainant on the purported ground that there was a possibility of

breach of peace and loss life owing to the dispute of possession on the land in question. The complainant alleged that the accused acted fraudulently

and beyond the scope of their powers while conducting the suo moto mutation proceedings with the sheer intention of causing wrongful loss to him.Â

The accused were apprised of the stay order passed by the court at 12.30 p.m. on 21.05.2012 itself. However, they acted in a corrupt and

fraudulent manner with a sheer intention of causing loss to the complainant and the mutation entered in his name was cancelled unilaterally and

arbitrarily on 21.05.2012 at 4.00 pm. The complainant applied for the copy of cancellation order, which was provided to him on 22.05.2012. The

complainant alleged that the accused had taken bribe of Rs.15000/- from him for entering mutation on the basis of the sale deed and later on they took

bribe of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite party for rescinding the valid and lawful mutation entry made in favour of the complainant. The said

complaint was forwarded to the ACB for enquiry. After making preliminary enquiry, the ACB proceeded to register the above-mentioned FIR

against the petitioner herein, the Patwari Vijendra Singh as well as Mukhtyar Singh. It is relevant to mention here that simultaneous with the lodging

of the complaint in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, the complainant also filed another complaint against the petitioner herein in the

Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana. The said complaint presented on 25.05.2012 containing verbatim, the same allegations as set out in the

complaint submitted in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption was forwarded to the Police Station Rawla for investigation under Section 156(3)

CrPC, where FIR No.174/2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 166, 167 and 420 IPC. Â Â The Investigating Officer of Police Station

Rawla, conducted thorough investigation into the matter and presented a negative final report in the court concerned on 30.09.2012. Though the

notice of Final Report was served on the complainant Gurmel Singh, but he failed to appear in the court to oppose the same, upon which, the court

accepted the FR by order dated 01.03.2013. It is further relevant to mention here that the ACB, after conducting through investigation into the

matter sought sanction to prosecute the co-accused Vijendra Godara (Patwari), against whom graver allegations were levelled. The District

Collector, Sri Ganganagar by a detailed order dated 21.04.2016 rejected the Investigating Officer’s prayer for grant of prosecution sanction

against Vijendra Godara. The District Collector held that the action of the Panchayat in cancelling the mutation was perfectly justified because

retaining the same could have led to breach of peace on the land in question. It is further relevant to mention here that the complainant Gurmel

Singh himself executed an affidavit, which is placed on record of the instant miscellaneous petition, swearing that he was aware of the subsequent

resolution taken by the Panchayat cancellaing the mutation. He also mentioned in the affidavit that the civil suit filed by Mukhtyar Singh was

dismissed on the basis of a compromise. The petitioner has placed on record of this petition, a copy of the order dated 21.05.2013 (Annex.7),

whereby after making thorough enquiry under Section 38 of the Panchayat Raj Act against the petitioner relating to her alleged misconduct for the

very same allegations, which form the substance of the impugned FIR for the very same allegations, which formed the substance of the impugned

FIR, the enquiry officer dropped the proceedings. The petitioner has now approached this court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition seeking

quashing of the FIR No.381/2013 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and all proceedings sought to be taken thereunder.

Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel representing the petitioner, relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of

Kerala & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and urged that the impugned FIR is a second FIR on the same facts and hence, the same is liable to be

quashed. He further urged that even if the allegations set out in the FIR are accepted to be true on the face of record alongwith the material facts

available on record, then apparently, no offence whatsoever is made out thereunder so as to justify the continuance of the investigation against the

petitioner. He, thus, implored the court to exercise its inherent powers and quash the impugned FIR.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating Officer Mr. Rajendra Prasad Digariya vehemently opposed the submissions

advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. However, he too was not in position to dispute the fact that the Patwari Vijendra Godara, against whom the

complainant’s allegations were graver as compared to the petitioner, stands exonerated in the case because the disciplinary authority has refused

to accord sanction to prosecute him, which was sought by the Investigating Officer of the present case. Learned Public Prosecutor also could not

dispute the fact that other than the offence of Prevention of Corruption Act, the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and those set out in the FIR

No.174/2012 registered at Police Station Rawla are verbatim the same.

I have carefully and thoroughly examined the allegations set out in the present FIR and the complete record of FIR No.174/2012 as well as the

reasons assigned by the Investigating Officer in the FR presented in the said FIR and find that the Investigating officer of Police Station Rawla

assigned cogent and convincing reasons for concluding that the accused did not commit any offence whatsoever while rescinding the disputed

mutation. Ex facie, the complainant could not present any evidence whatsoever so as to even prima facie prove that the accused had taken illegal

gratification for the questioned transactions. It may be possible that the disputed mutation entry was cancelled illegally but that by itself cannot give

rise to an inference that the action was corrupt or fraudulent. Furthermore, the proceeding of revocation of the mutation entry was undertaken by

the concerned officials including the Patwari and the members of the Gram Panchayat after due deliberation and with consent of the entire quorum

required to validate the proceedings. Â The District Collector, while examining the question of grant of prosecution sanction against Vijendra Godara

has thoroughly examined this issue and held that the disputed mutation entry was rescinded after following due process of law.Â

In this background, I am of the firm opinion that allowing investigation of the present FIR to be continued against the petitioner would be nothing short

of a gross abuse of process of law. The present FIR and the one registered earlier by the complainant with the State Police through a complaint

forwarded under Section 156(3) CrPC are based on exactly identical allegations and hence, once the proceedings of the FIR registered with the local

police have been closed, permitting investigation of the present FIR to be continued against the petitioner would be nothing short of a gross abuse of

process of law. The controversy at hand is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) cited by Mr.

Kotwani and the impugned FIR being a second FIR on the same facts deserves to be quashed.

Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No.381/2013 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau,

Jaipur and all proceeding sought to be taken thereunder are hereby quashed.