Land Revenue Code | Mere Allegation Of Taking Indirect Advantage From Demarcation Proceedings Not Criminal Conspiracy: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that mere allegation of deriving indirect advantage from demarcation proceedings under the MP Land Revenue Code cannot, in the absence of cogent evidence, form a basis for inferring criminal conspiracy. The bench of Justice BP Sharma quashed a Trial Court order directing registration of an FIR, observing that the order was passed mechanically as the essential ingredient of mens rea was not demonstrated. The bench highlighted; "Further, this Court finds that there is absolutely no material on record to establish any meeting of minds or agreement so as to constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy. The essential ingredient of mens rea is conspicuously absent. Mere allegation that the petitioners may have derived some indirect advantage from the demarcation proceedings cannot, in law, be sufficient to infer their involvement in a criminal conspiracy, particularly in the absence of any cogent evidence". The case arose from demarcation and subsequent encroachment removal proceedings conducted by revenue authorities under the Code. Possession of the land had been restored following official action by the company. However, legal heirs of Narendra Jain (respondents 2 to 5) claimed that they were not party to the proceedings. Subsequently, the revenue authorities conducted another proceeding, which also affirmed the findings of encroachment by respondents 2 to 5. A complaint was later filed by respondents 2 to 5 against petitioners and certain revenue officers, alleging fabrication of records and other offences. The Trial Court, however, directed registration of FIR against the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashment of the order and ensuing criminal proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner contended that they were not signatories to any demarcation proceedings conducted by revenue authorities. It was contended that no specific overt act was committed, and the entire dispute was civil in nature. The counsel for the respondents contended that the complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offence and therefore the Trial Court had exercised its jurisdiction under Section 156(2) of CrPC for registration of FIR. The court held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the law. The bench noted that the dispute arose from demarcation proceedings undertaken by revenue authorities. The demarcation report is an official document prepared by competent revenue officials in discharge of their duties. The bench noted that the respondents failed to show that the petitioners had any role in the preparation of such a demarcation report. The bench highlighted that the petitioner had not signed any official or unofficial document related to demarcation or mutation proceedings. The respondents failed to demonstrate that the petitioners made any representation or communication to the authority regarding the status, presence or death of Narendra Jain. Thus, the bench held, "The allegation that a deceased person was shown as present in the demarcation report, even if accepted on its face, pertains to the conduct of the revenue officials who prepared such report, and not to the petitioners". The bench further noted the lack of any evidence to establish any meeting of minds between the petitioner and the revenue authorities. Thus, the essential ingredient of mens rea was absent. Further, the bench held that the order passed by the Trial Court directing registration of FIR was passed without application of mind. The Magistrate failed to consider whether the complaint disclosed essential ingredients of the offence alleged and thus deemed to have been passed mechanically. Therefore, the bench allowed the petitioner and set aside the impugned order directing registration of FIR. Case Title: Pawan Mittal v State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-37442-2024]For Company: Advocate Anuj AgarwalFor Legal Heirs of Narendra Jain: Advocate Aditya JainFor State: Advocate Jitendra ShrivastavaClick here to read/download the Order

Land Revenue Code | Mere Allegation Of Taking Indirect Advantage From Demarcation Proceedings Not Criminal Conspiracy: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags