# Panna Lal and others v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 654
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-05-09
- **Bench:** R.K. Rastogi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/panna-lal-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41082
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482quashing of charge sheet along with
criminal proceeding-applicant a Lekhpal
submitted false report in a mutation
proceeding before Tehsildar-under Para
22 of Land Record Manual on the other
hand wrongly shown alive person as
dead-instead of moving application u/s
340 Cr.P.C.-application under Section
156(3) case registered and charge sheet
submitted-held-Tehsildar itself a Courtinstead of moving application under
2 All] Panna Lal and others V. State of U.P. and another
655
Section 340-proceeding under Section
156(3) barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C.-
entire proceeding in pursuance of taking
cognizance order set aside.

Held: Para 11

Thus, the entire proceedings taken on
the basis of the orders passed on the
application under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C.
and on the charge sheet submitted in
compliance
of
the
orders
on
that
application are without jurisdiction, and
the learned Magistrate erred in law by
taking cognizance on that charge sheet.
Hence, the present application under
section 482 Cr. P .C. deserves to be
allowed and the proceedings of the case
deserve to be quashed in view of the bar
of section 195 Cr. P .C.

## Text

654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
as well as they are appointed in Degree
Colleges.

13. At this stage it may also be
noticed that with the enforcement of U.P.
Higher Education Service Commission
Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as
Commission Act, 1980), appointment on
the post of teachers in affiliated Degree
Colleges
is
regulated
under
the
Commission Act, 1980 where under
various provisions for regularization of
teachers of Degree Colleges covered by
the aforesaid Commission Act, 1980 have
been issued from time to time namely
Section 31(1)(b) (added by Act No. 21 of
1988), Section 31-B (2) (a) (added by Act
No. 26 of 1989), Section 31-C (added by
U.P. Act No. 02 of 1992), Section 31-C
(added by U.P. Act No. 10 of 1997).

14. In view of the aforesaid statutory
provisions, we are of the considered
opinion that a teacher, who has been
appointed in an affiliated Degree College,
cannot be equated with that of the teacher
appointed in the University with reference
to Section 31 (3)(c) of the U.P. State
Universities Act.

15. We are also of the considered
opinion that any part time teacher
appointed in a Degree College cannot
claim benefit of the services rendered by
him in the affiliated Degree College for
the purposes of claiming benefit of
regularization under Section 31 (3)(c) of
the U.P. State Universities Act on being
subsequently appointed in the University
on part time / short term basis.

16. We, therefore, have no hesitation
to hold that since on the cut of date i. e.
31st December, 1997 the petitioner was
not a teacher in the University (working
on short term/part time), the benefit of the
regularization as per Section 31 (3) (c) of
the U.P. State Universities Act was not
attracted in the case of the petitioner.

17. The Vice Chancellor has acted in
conformity of law and is justified in
holding that the regularization earlier
offered to petitioner is legally not
sustainable and is in defiance of the
statutory provisions of Section 31 (3)(c).
There is no error in the order of the Vice
Chancellor
so
as
to
warrant
any
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Writ petition is
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. RASTOGI, J.

Criminal Misc. Application 26653 of 2007

Panna Lal and others

...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri. Manish Goyal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri. B.P. Verma
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482quashing of charge sheet along with
criminal proceeding-applicant a Lekhpal
submitted false report in a mutation
proceeding before Tehsildar-under Para
22 of Land Record Manual on the other
hand wrongly shown alive person as
dead-instead of moving application u/s
340 Cr.P.C.-application under Section
156(3) case registered and charge sheet
submitted-held-Tehsildar itself a Courtinstead of moving application under
2 All] Panna Lal and others V. State of U.P. and another
655
Section 340-proceeding under Section
156(3) barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C.-
entire proceeding in pursuance of taking
cognizance order set aside.

Held: Para 11

Thus, the entire proceedings taken on
the basis of the orders passed on the
application under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C.
and on the charge sheet submitted in
compliance
of
the
orders
on
that
application are without jurisdiction, and
the learned Magistrate erred in law by
taking cognizance on that charge sheet.
Hence, the present application under
section 482 Cr. P .C. deserves to be
allowed and the proceedings of the case
deserve to be quashed in view of the bar
of section 195 Cr. P .C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi, J.)

1. This is an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge
sheet dated 18.9.2007 on the basis of
which Criminal Case No. 1245/1X of
2007 State Vs. Panna Lal and others has
been registered against the accused
applicants under Section 420, 467, 468,
471, 120-B I.P.C. in the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
Mathura and the order dated 24.9.2007
whereby the Presiding Officer of the
Court has taken cognizance against the
accused persons in that case.

2. Before dealing with the respective
case of the parties it will be useful to go
through their pedigree. There were two
brothers Nand Kumar and Bigha Ram.
Nand Kumar had two sons named Prasadi
and Ram Kishore. Ram Kishore had no
issue. Prasadi had three sons named
Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar who
are applicants No.1, 2 and 3 in the present
case. Nand Kumar's brother Bigha Ram
had three sons named Jagan Prasad, Devi
Prasad and Gaya Prasad. Gaya Prasad did
not have any male issue and he had one
daughter only named Brahma Devi. Devi
Prasad also had no issue. Jagan Prasad
had a son named Mahesh Chand.

3. It is alleged in the FIR dated
13.10.04 registered on the application of
Sri Mahesh Chandra Sharma (Opposite
Party No. 2 in this case) that Bigha Ram
was owner of the property entered in
Khata No. 1 & 2 of Mahalia Hardutta,
Tehsil and District Mathura. Since Devi
Prasad S/o Bigha Ram had no issue he
had given the land of his share (inherited
from Bigha Ram) to his nephew Mahesh
Chand. Since Gaya Prasad S/o Bigha Ram
had no male issue, the share of Gaya
Prasad in the land was also inherited by
Mahesh Chand. Thus, Mahesh Chand
became owner of the entire property of
Bigha Ram by inheritance; and out of this
property he sold its one third share to the
complainant Mahesh Chand Sherma,
opposite party No.2. in the present case,
vide
a
registered
sale
deed
dated
6.10.1986. Mahesh Chand son of Jagan
Prasad and Mahesh Chandra Sharma son
of Ganga Charan Sharma started to raise
construction on that land on 23.9.1996
and at that time the accused Panna Lal,
Ram Babu and Raj Kumar restrained
them from raising constructions and they
claimed that the land had been entered in
their name. Then Mahesh Chand son of
Jagan Prasad and Mahesh Chand Sharma
present complainant, inspected the file of
Case No. 293/14 Panna Lal and others Vs.
Prasadi Lal and others under Section 34
of
the
Land
Revenue
Act
Mauja
Goverdhan Brahaman Pargana Mathura in
the
Court
of
Additional
Tehsildar,
Mathura and then they came to know that
the above named accused persons in
collusion with Lekhpal Prahlad Singh of
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
Goverdhan had got submitted a false
report under Section 22 of the Land
Record Manual in the Court on 18.8.1992
showing Jagan Prasad and Devi Prasad
sons of Bigha Ram as dead persons and
further showing that Jagan Prasad had no
living issue and showing the accused
applicants as heirs of Bigha Ram being
grand sons of Nand Kumar brother of
Bigha Ram. Lekhpal Prahlad Singh gave
a false statement in the Court of
Additional
Tehsildar
on
9.10.1992
asserting that Mahesh Chand had also
died, and thus the accused-applicants
obtained the mutation orders in their
favour by misrepresentation of facts. Then
the complainant Mahesh Chandra Sharma
moved an application for setting aside that
order of mutation. This application was
allowed by the learned S.D.M., Mathura
on 26.12.1998. Thereafter the accused
persons filed an appeal before the
Commissioner, Agra but that appeal was
also dismissed on 18.8.2003. In this way,
the accused Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Raj
Kumar in collusion with Prahlad Singh,
Lekhpal had hatched a conspiracy to
cause damage to the complainant and had
prepared fictitious documents and had
given false statements in the Court of
Tehsildar, Mathura alleging that Mahesh
Chand son of Jagan Prasad had died,
while Mahesh Chand was alive at that
time. Thus the accused had committed
offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471
& 120-B I.P.C. Hence Mahesh Chandra
Sharma, the complainant moved an
application under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C.
against the above accused persons on
13.10.2004.

4. On the above application, the
learned Magistrate passed an order
directing the police of P .S. Goverdhan,
Mathura to register a case against the
accused persons and investigate the same.
The police accordingly registered Case
Crime No. C51 of 2004 against the
accused persons, but after investigation,
the police submitted the final report on
10.12.04. Aggrieved with that report, the
complainant Mahesh Chandra Sharma
filed the protest petition on 19.3.05. The
Magistrate treated that protest petition as
a complaint vide the order dated 7.6.05
and fixed a date for statement of the
complainant under Section 200 Cr. P.C.
Aggrieved with that order treating the
application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C.
as a complaint, Mahesh Chandra filed
Criminal Revision No. 335/05 in the
Court of Sessions Judge, Mathura. During
pendency of this revision, the Learned·
Magistrate dismissed the above complaint
in default under Section 203 Cr. P.C..
Aggrieved
with
that
order
the
complainant filed Criminal Revision No.
526 of 2005 Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs.
State.

5. Criminal Revision No. 335/05
was allowed by the Additional Sessions
Judge Court No.9, Mathura vide judgment
dated 31.10.05 and the order of the
learned Magistrate dated 7.6.05 passed on
the protest petition treating the same to be
a complaint was set aside. Criminal
Revision No.526 of 2005 was allowed by
the same Judge on the same date and the
order of dismissal of the complaint was
set aside. In compliance of the aforesaid
orders, the learned Magistrate again heard
the complainant, on the final report
submitted by the police, and he rejected
the final report vide his order dated
7.7.07, and directed the concerned Station
Officer
to
get
the
matter
further
investigated and to submit the report.
2 All] Panna Lal and others V. State of U.P. and another
657

6. In compliance of the above order,
the matter was further investigated, and
this
time
the
Investigating
Officer
submitted a charge sheet against all the
accused persons under section 420, 467,
468, 471 & 120 B I.P.C. On the basis of
that charge sheet, Cr. Case No. 1245/IX
of 2007 was registered against the
accused persons and the Magistrate took
cognizance
against
all
the
accused
persons vide his order dated 24.9.2007.

7. Aggrieved with the above charge
sheet and the order taking cognizance on
that charge sheet, the accused applicants
have filed this application under Section
482 Cr. P.C.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel
for both the parties and have gone through
the record. It is to be seen that the
allegation of the complainant opposite
party No. 2 in the present case is that the
accused applicants No.1, 2, and 3 in
collusion with Prahlad Singh, Lekhpal got
a fictitious report under Section 22 of the
Land Record Manual prepared showing
Mahesh Chandra son of Jagan Prasad as
dead and showing the accused applicants
Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Raj Kumar as
heirs of the Bigha Ram, and that a false
statement regarding death of Mahesh
Chandra son of Jagan Prasad was given in
the Court of Tehsildar while he was alive
on that date. Thus, the offences alleged
against the applicants are two fold. The
first allegation is that a fictitious report
under Section 22 of the Land Record
Manual was prepared by Prahlad Singh,
Lekhpal showing Mahesh Chand son of
Jagan Prasad as dead with a view to give
undue benefit to the accused applicants
Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Raj Kumar,
and the second allegation is that in
support of this false report Prahlad Singh
Lekhpal
and
the
present
accused
applicants gave false statements before
the Tehsildar deposing that Mahesh
Chand son of Jagan Pal had died though
he was alive at that time. Now, it is to be
seen that these alleged offences were
committed during the proceedings of the
mutation case before the Tehsildar. So
action in respect of these offences could
be taken by that Court only where the
offence was committed, in accordance
with the provisions of section 195 of
Cr.P.C. which runs as under:-

(1) No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under
sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
or
(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to
commit, such offence,
or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to
commit, such offence, except on the
complainant in writing of the public
servant concerned or of some other public
servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate;

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under
any of the following sections of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections
193 to 196 (both inclusive). 199.200.205
to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when
such offence is alleged to have been
committed in. or in relation to, any
proceeding in any Court. or
(ii) of any offence described in section
463. or punishable under section 471,
section 475 or section 476, of the said
Code, when such offence is alleged to
have been committed in. or in relation to,
any proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to
commit, or attempt to commit, or the
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
abetment of, any offence specified in subclause (i) or sub-clause (ii),
[except on the complaint in writing of that
Court by such officer of the Court as that
Court may authorise in writing in this
behalf, or of some other Court to which
that Court is subordinate].

(2) Where a complaint has been made by
a public servant under clause (a) of subsection (1) any authority to which he is
administratively subordinate may order
the withdrawal of the complainant and
send a copy of such order to the Court;
and upon its receipt by the Court, no
further proceedings shall be taken on the
complaint:
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be
ordered if the trial in the Court of first
instance has been concluded.

(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the
term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or
Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal
constituted by or under a Central,
Provincial or State Act if declared by that
Act to be a Court for the purposes of this
section.

(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of subsection (1), a Court shall be deemed to be
subordinate to the Court to which appeals
ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees
or sentences of such former Court, or in
the case of a Civil Court from whose
decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the
principal Court having ordinarily original
civil jurisdiction within whose local
jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate:

Provided that-
(a) Where appeals lie to more than one
Court, the Appellate Court of inferior
jurisdiction shall be the Court to which
such Court shall be deemed to be
subordinate;
(b) Where appeals lie to a civil and also to
a Revenue Court, such Court shall be
deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or
Revenue Court according to the nature of
the case or proceeding in connection with
which the offence is alleged to have been
committed.

9. In view of the provisions of the
aforesaid section, action in respect of the
offences alleged against the accused could
be taken either by the Tehsildar or by the
Appellate Court hearing appeals against
the orders of the lower Court. The Court
of Tehsildar being a Revenue Court
comes within the definition of the term
'Court' as provided in sub section 3 of the
above section. The procedure for taking
proceedings in such cases has been
enumerated in section 340 of the Cr. P.C.
which runs as under:-

(1) When upon an application made to it
in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of
opinion that it is expedient in the interests
of justice that an inquiry should be made
into any offence referred to it in clause (b)
of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which
appears to have been committed in or in
relation to a proceeding in that Court or,
as the case may be, in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence
in a proceeding in that Court, such Court
may, after such preliminary inquiry, if
any, as it thinks necessary,-

(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class
having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the
appearance of the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is
2 All] Kedar Ram First V. State of U.P. and others
659
non-bailable and the Court thinks it
necessary so to do, send the accused in
custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and
give evidence before such Magistrate.

(2) The power conferred on a Court by
sub-section (1) in respect of an offence
may, in any case where that Court has
neither made a complaint, under subsection (1) in respect of that offence nor
rejected an application for the making of
such complaint be exercised by the Court
to which such former Court is subordinate
within the meaning of sub- section (4) of
Section 195.

(3) A complaint made under this section
shall be signed,-
(a) where the Court making the complaint
is a High Court, by such officer of the
Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding
officer of the Court.

(4) In this section, "Court" has the same
meaning as in Section 195.

10. Thus, it is clear from the
aforesaid section that the complainant
could move an application in this regard
before the Court of Tehsildar and that
Court after making necessary enquiry
could pass an order for lodging a
complaint against the accused persons and
that complaint could be sent to the court
of Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the
offences. The above procedure, which
was the right and correct procedure in the
present case, was not followed but an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C.
was moved for police investigation, which
was barred in view of the provisions of
section 195 Cr.P.C.

11. Thus, the entire proceedings
taken on the basis of the orders passed on
the application under section 156 (3) Cr.
P.C. and on the charge sheet submitted in
compliance
of
the
orders
on
that
application are without jurisdiction, and
the learned Magistrate erred in law by
taking cognizance on that charge sheet.
Hence, the present application under
section 482 Cr. P .C. deserves to be
allowed and the proceedings of the case
deserve to be quashed in view of the bar
of section 195 Cr. P .C. The complainant
opposite party No. 2 shall, however, be at
liberty to move an application against the
accused applicants under Section 340 Cr.
P.C. before the concerned Court in
accordance with the provisions of law.

12. The application under Section
482 Cr. P.C. is, therefore, allowed and the
charge sheet submitted in Criminal Case
No. 1245/IX of 2007 State Vs. Panna Lal
and others, and the order of the Magistrate
dt. 24.9.07 taking cognizance thereon are
set aside. However, it will be open to the
complainant opposite party No.2 to move
an application before the concerned Court
for taking action against the accused
persons in accordance with the provisions
of section 340 Cr. P .C.
Application
Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26668 of 2002

Kedar Ram First

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents