Vijay Ram and Others vs State of M.P.

Narain Singh, ''Azad'', J.

The Petitioners are facing Criminal Case No. 542/1997 in the Court of JMFC Niwari, district Tikamgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, which they seek to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers.

On an application submitted by Atmaram son of Dwarka Prasad, aged 50 years, resident of Kulua, tehsil Niwari, district Tikamgarh, to S.P. Tikamgarh, an enquiry was handed over by Hiralal, head constable No. 148, posted at P.S. Niwari. As per application, submitted by Atmaram, he was married to Swaraj Devi, the daughter of Shri Jaldhari Brahmin, who had no son. Ramnath Mishra was cousin brother-in-law of Jaldhari, who voluntarily executed and got registered sale deeds dated 18.1.1972, 24.1.1970 and 11.3.1970 and thereby transferred his house and land in favour of Atmaram. Thereafter, by a registered will, Ramnath Mishra gave rest of his property to Navin, the son of Atmaram and died at Kulua on 14.1.1995. On 16.1.1995, the registered will was handed over to patwari for mutation over the agricultural land of late Ramnath Mishra, who informed on 19.1.1995 about the submission of another, will of Ramnath Mishra by Vijayrour Mahadeo, Chintaman, Om Prakash, Santosh, Ramesh, Chandrabhan and Urmila. On enquiry been made, it could be known that in collusion with Raghuvir Singh notosy and writing the aforesaid persons, means these Petitioners forged a bill of late Ramnath Mishra, with intent to illegally obtain his property and hence crime No. 289/95 was registered against these Petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C.

After investigation, police station Niwari, submitted a report in the Court of JMFC Niwari, which is registered as Criminal Case No. 542/97.

A consideration of photocopy of certified copy of order dated 22.4.1996 passed by SDM Niwari, in case No. 2/Appeal/95-96, (Vijay Mahadeo and two other v. Navin Kumar and another)discloses that in Revenue Case No. 49/A-6/94-95, Tehsildar accepted that will of late Ramnath dated 20.9.1994 which was executed in favour of Respondent Navin Kumar, who did not believe Ramnath''s will dated 5.1.1995, which was executed in favour of Petitioners, on consideration of certified copy of order dated 13.3.2002 passed by second ASJ Tikamgarh, in Petitioner''s Criminal Revision No. 153/99, wherein Petitioner''s challenge to order of rejection of their application filed u/s 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 30.9.1999, by learned JMPC, was negatived, it is noted that mutation in favour of Navin Kumar was ordered by tehsildar Niwari, on the basis of will dated 20.9.1994 by rejecting will dated 5.1.1995 submitted by Petitioners which was later on seized by police from the Court of Tehslidar, Niwari.

It is argued on behalf of the Petitioners that tehsildar Niwari ordered mutation in the capacity of revenue Court and hence, in respect of Petitioners that tehsildar Niwari ordered mutation in the capacity of revenue Court and hence, in respect of Petitioner''s will dated 5.1.1995 which is the subject matter of enquiry in Criminal Case No. 542/1997, Tehsildar Niwari alone could have filed a complaint as required u/s 195(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thus, the inrfiation of criminal proceedings on the complaint of Atmaram, and investigation, so also the submission of police report, against these Petitioners; which is registered as Criminal Case No. 542/1997, in the Court of JMFC. Niwari, is illegal which is liable to be quashed.

It is admitted fact that these Petitioners claimed mutation over the agricultural land of late Ramnath on the basis of will dated 5.1.1995 which is subject matter of enquiry in Criminal Case No. 542/1997, for offences punishable u/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Thus, the will dated 5.1.1995 which is alleged to have been submitted by Petitioners, is alleged to have been forged before its production in the Court of Tehsildar, Niwari, for seeking mutation and it is found dictated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in a similar case Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan (dead) and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, , that if the offence of forging documents is committed before start of proceedings revenue Court, complaint by revenue Court, before which the said documents were produced, is not necessary. As Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application to such case.

In result, this petition does not merit which is accordingly disallowed and rejected.