High Court
Facts
1065.Crl.WP.962.2021+ WP.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.962 OF 20211. Sumant s/o Bhagwat Ghadge, 2. Anant s/o Bhagwat Ghadge, 3. Maharudra s/o Bhagwat Ghadge, 4. Vitthal s/o Pandurang Andil, 5.Rajebhau s/o Kisan Ghadge, 6. Gopinath s/o Nivrutti Kale, 7. Yashwant s/o Kisanrao Chavan, …PETITIONERSVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra,through the Police Inspector, Ambajogai Rural Police Station Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed,2. Jagannath s/o Vitthalrao Ghadge…RESPONDENTS...Advocate for petitioners: Mr. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar A.P.P. for respondent/State : Mr. Amar V. LavteAdvocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande…WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1470 OF 2021Jagannath Vitthal Ghadge … PETITIONER VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtrathrough the Police Station Officer,Ambajogai – Rural, Dist. Beed2.The Superintendent of Police,Beed3.The Special Inspector General of Police,Aurangabad Range, Aurangabad4.The Additional Chief Secretary,Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.…RESPONDENTS ...1/11 1065.Crl.WP.962.2021+ WP.odtAdvocate for petitioner : Mr. Ajay S. DeshpandeA.P.P. for respondents/State : Mr. Amar V. Lavte… CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.Reserved On : 27.03.2024Pronounced On : 04.04.2024 ORDER (PER : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2.In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thepetitioners who have been arraigned as accused in Crime No.40/2020registered with Ambejogai Rural Police Station, District Beed for theoffence punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code are seeking quashment of the Crime.3.In Writ Petition No.1470/2021 the original informant fromthe same crime is seeking transfer of the investigation to the local crimebranch. Since both the matters pertain to the same crime, in order toavoid rigmarole, both the matters have been heard simultaneously andfinally with the consent of both the sides.4.The sum and substance of the allegations as can be deducedfrom the FIR are to the effect that the revenue record showing theinformant to be the owner of 30 Are portion from land Gat No.185 whichbefore a scheme for consolidation of land holdings was implemented inthe year 1988 under the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and2/11
Legal Reasoning
1065.Crl.WP.962.2021+ WP.odtthe consolidation record expressly observing that the direction forcorrection of the consolidation record by his predecessor was withoutfollowing due process and the rules and was done ignoring the revenuerecord and relying upon forged and bogus revenue record.11.Learned advocate Mr. Deshpande for the respondent No.2 –informant would additionally submit that since inception he has beenalleging that the investigation is not being carried out properly. He hadto pursue the authorities and even to approach the Court and somehowcould manage to get the offence registered. The informant, therefore,has been requesting for transfer of the investigation.12. We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers of the investigation. Apparently there is no dispute about the factthat the father of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 who have been arraigned asaccused Nos.1 to 3, by name Bhagwat and the father of the respondentNo.2 – informant by name Vitthal were the real brothers and inherited ashare in land survey No.58 from their father which was totallyadmeasuring 1 Hectare 37 Are. There is also no dispute about the factthat during implementation of a scheme under the Consolidation Act,while forming Gat No.185 the division was unequal. Respondent No.2 –informant was allotted 30 Are portion. The scheme was implementedway back in the year 1988 and since then the revenue record continuedto demonstrate his being the owner of 30 Are portion from Gut No.185.The revenue record in the form of 7/12 extract ex facie, till the year6/11 1065.Crl.WP.962.2021+ WP.odt2005-06 was showing him to be the owner in possession of 30 Areportion from Gut No.185. It is also apparent that even the petitionershave not been able to demonstrate that any mutation as is contemplatedunder the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the Rules framedthereunder was certified so as to undertake alteration in the extent ofland standing in the name of respondent No.2 – informant. Abruptlyfrom then onwards that is the year 2006-07 onwards the revenue recordwas altered by reducing the extent of land to 22 Are. The petitionerscould not demonstrate as to how this could have happened but for therevenue officials having acted hand-in-gloves with them. 13.In the absence of any such procedure having been followedunder the relevant law for making alteration in the revenue record thisfact would be clinching.14.It is also apparent that respondent No.2 – informant couldderive the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 bymaking application to the office of the District Superintendent of LandRecords, wherein, he could realize that incorrect rather false revenuerecord was tendered by the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 by moving anapplication seeking correction of the scheme that was finalized under theConsolidation Act. Irrespective of the fact whether this could have beendone by resorting to an appeal under Section 247 of the MaharashtraLand Revenue Code, 1966, instead of resorting to the appropriateprovision contained in the Consolidation Act in the form of Section 31A7/11 1065.Crl.WP.962.2021+ WP.odtand 32(1), the proceeding was treated apparently under that provisionand the direction for correction under Section 31A were passed by co-accused - Dr. Veer, the then District Superintendent of Land Records. Wedo not intend to make any comment about his role, inasmuch as, the trialcourt has already discharged him and respondent No.2 – informant seemsto have challenged that order in a revision.15.The fact remains that this proceeding seeking correction inthe scheme finalized under the Consolidation Act by resorting to Section31A and 32(1) and the order passed therein is of the year 2016. At themost, pursuant to the order passed under that section in that proceedingthe correction in the revenue record could have happened thereafter.However, the copies of the 7/12 extract produced by petitioners Nos.1 to3 while preferring that proceeding styled as appeal under Section 247 ofthe Maharashtra Land Revenue Code clearly demonstrates that for thesubsequent years that is 2006-07 onwards it was corrected to depict thatrespondent No.2 – informant was the owner of 22 Are portion when tillthen i.e. up to the year 2005-06 he was shown to be the owner inpossession of 30 Are portion.16.This very fact demonstrates prima facie that false revenuerecord was produced before the District Superintendent of Land Records,Beed in order to solicit an order for correction of a scheme by resorting toSection 31A and 32(1) of the Consolidation Act. One need not delvedeep to observe that petitioners Nos.1 to 3 were the beneficiaries of such8/11 1065.Crl.WP.962.2021+ WP.odtalteration and their attempt to demonstrate that it is merely a matter ofcivil dispute is nothing but an eye wash. 17.Their conduct in again getting Mutation Entry No.537 to becertified on 18.10.2015 showing share in Gut No.185 as 69 Are which infact was not that much in the Revenue Record, clearly substantiates theinference that they have indulged in forgery and have used the forgeddocuments to solicit an order under Section 31A of the Consolidation Act.In our considered view, these facts and circumstances clearly make out allthe ingredients for the offences being pressed against petitioner Nos.1 to3 and it cannot be said that it is a matter of either lack of material orabuse of the process of law. Consequently they are not entitled to evenderive any benefit from the decision in the matter of Deepak Gaba(supra).18.Again, quashment of crime to the extent of co-accused -Ramkrishna Dnyaneshwar Kalekar who was a correction clerk in theoffice of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Parali, would not enure tothe benefit of petitioners Nos.1 to 3. The role attributed to him is clearlydistinct from the one attributed to them.19.However, as far as the petitioners Nos.4 to 7 are concerned,they are stated to have been party to the Panchanama conducted by theoffice of the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records in connection withthe matter being inquired into. There is nothing on the record todemonstrate that they have indulged in any crime albeit it is being9/11
Arguments
1065.Crl.WP.962.2021+ WP.odtConsolidation of Holdings, Act, 1947 (herein after the Consolidation Act)has been reduced to 22 Are without there being any appropriatemutation, and by the present petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 inconnivance with the rest of the accused by the co-accused - revenueofficials by resorting to forgery. It is also alleged that without conductingappropriate inquiry the revenue officials, who have been also accused inthe crime, have resorted to some sham quasi judicial proceeding behindhis back and without undertaking any procedure, order was passed forcorrection of the revenue record under the guise of error in the schemeimplemented under the Consolidation Act.5.The learned advocate Mr. Gangakhedkar for the petitioners –accused would take us through the papers and would submit that it ismerely a matter of implementation of a scheme under the ConsolidationAct. Appropriate proceeding under Sections 31A and 32 (1) were takenout. Co-accused - Deputy Superintendent of Land Records Mr. Veer afterundertaking the quasi judicial process as contemplated under theconsolidation Act passed the order and directed correction of the revenuerecord. Even if that order has been subsequently reviewed andsuperseded by the successor in the office, it is purely a civil dispute. Nocriminality is involved. The father of the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 - Bhagwatand father of the respondent No.2 - informant Vitthal were the realbrothers. Land survey No.58 totally admeasuring 1 Hectare 37 Are was ajoint family property standing in the name of their father. Each one of3/11 1065.Crl.WP.962.2021+ WP.odtthem that is Bhagwat and Vitthal were having half share. However, whileimplementating consolidation scheme an error had occurred. Bhagwatwas allotted 60 Are land, whereas, Vitthal was shown to have 69 Areland. Therefore, the area was corrected by resorting to the appropriateprocedure as contemplated under the Consolidation Act. The respondentNo.2 - informant has tactically lodged the FIR to pressurize all theaccused persons. It would be abuse of the process of law to make thepetitioners face the trial.6.Mr. Gangakhedkar would further submit that co-accused - Dr.V. N. Veer the then Superintendent of Land Records, Beed has alreadybeen discharged. Even co-accused - Ramkrishna Dnyaneshwar Kalekarwho was serving as a correction clerk in the office of the Taluka Inspectorof Land Records, Parali had approached this Court in CriminalApplication No.1757/2021 and by the order dated 14.12.2023, the crimeto his extent has also been quashed.7.Lastly, Mr. Gangakhedkar would submit that no offence canbe made out much less any ingredient for the offences punishable underSection 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode.8.Mr. Gangakhedkar would place reliance on the decision ofthe Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Gaba and Ors. Vs. State ofUttar Pradesh and Anr.; (2023) 3 Supreme Court Cases 423. 9.Per contra, the learned APP and the learned advocate4/11 1065.Crl.WP.962.2021+ WP.odtMr. Deshpande for the respondent No.2 – informant would stronglyoppose the petition seeking quashment of the crime. They would submitthat irrespective of the correctness of the Consolidation Scheme, once itwas implemented there could not have been any correction in therevenue record unless the procedure contemplated under theConsolidation Act was undertaken. Though subsequently such aproceeding under Section 31A and 32(1) of the Consolidation Act seemsto have been undertaken, it was only with a view to salvage someground. Even before co-accused - Dr. Veer the then Superintendent ofLand Record could pass any order the revenue record was corrected.There was no mutation entry as is required by the Maharashtra LandRevenue Code and the Rules framed thereunder. False revenue recordwas prepared and presented in the office undertaking the consolidationscheme based on which, without following procedure bogus panchanamawas prepared. There is a statement of one of the Panchas recorded underSection 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, expressly denying hissignature thereon which would clearly demonstrate that even theproceeding subsequently initiated for correction of consolidation schemewas an eyewash. 10.They would further submit that even Mutation Entry No.537was certified illegally showing incorrect extent of the land standing in thename of Anant. They would point out that realizing the gross illegalities,the successor District Superintendent of Land Records, Beed has restored5/11
Decision
1065.Crl.WP.962.2021+ WP.odtvaguely alleged that they have participated in demonstrating that aPanchanama was conducted which in fact was bogus.20.True it is that one of the Panchas namely Pandhari DnyanobaChavan in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of CriminalProcedure has denied to have signed the Panchanama and has disownedhis signature thereon. However, apart from the fact that he has notattributed anything to petitioners Nos.4 to 7, and there is no othermaterial on the record to demonstrate that petitioners Nos.4 to 7 havingindulged in any criminal act with the requisite mens rea. In view of suchstate of affairs, in our considered view it would be abuse of the process oflaw to allow petitioners Nos.4 to 7 to face the prosecution with thequality of material, rather lack of it.21.So far as Writ Petition No.1470/2021 is concerned theinformant has been seeking transfer of the investigation, since the chargesheet has been filed already. In our considered view, an alternate andefficacious remedy is available to him to resort to the appropriateproceeding as is laid down in the matter of Vinubhai Hirabhai Malaviya V.State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1. 22.The Writ Petition No.962/2021 is allowed partly.23.The Crime No.40/2020 registered with Ambejogai RuralPolice Station, District Beed for the offence punishable under Section420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code tothe extent of petitioners Nos.4 to 7 namely Vitthal s/o Pandurang Andil,10/11 1065.Crl.WP.962.2021+ WP.odtRajebhau s/o Kisan Ghadge, Gopinath s/o Nivrutti Kale and Yashwant s/oKisanrao Chavan, is quashed and set aside.24.The writ petition No.962/2021 to the extent of petitionersNos.1 to 3 namely Sumant s/o Bhagwat Ghadge, Anant s/o BhagwatGhadge and Maharudra s/o Bhagwat Ghadge is dismissed. 25.Criminal Writ Petition No.1470/2021 is disposed of withliberty to the petitioner (informant) to resort to the remedies ascontemplated in the matter of Vinubhai Hirabhai Malaviya (supra).26.The Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEhabeeb11/11