Bombay HC Upholds Dismissal Of Uncle’s Land-Record Forgery Complaint, Noting Nephew Sought Correction Before It Was Filed

The petitioner alleged that, following his father’s death, the names of all the father’s legal heirs were recorded in the revenue records, but after his brother Siddik’s death, Mutation Entry No. 14721 recorded only Siddik’s heirs, excluding the petitioner and other heirs.

He alleged that the entry and related alterations to the 7/12 extracts were fabricated to deprive them of their property rights, and filed a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC

Following an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203.

On revision, the matter was remanded for reconsideration; the Magistrate again dismissed the complaint, and the Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner’s subsequent revision

The petitioner then sought, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, to set aside those orders and obtain a direction for an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC

Under Sections 202 and 203 of the CrPC, a Magistrate may inquire into a complaint and dismiss it where there is insufficient ground to proceed.

The Court relied on Harishchandra Prasad Mani v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 15 SCC 494, for the principle that, although evidentiary adequacy is not assessed at the cognizance stage, there must be some material implicating the accused; suspicion alone is insufficient

The alleged offences under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC require material supporting their constituent criminal elements, including dishonest intention where relevant; an administrative error or procedural irregularity, without material indicating criminal intent, does not by itself establish those offences

The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was relevant to the process for challenging or correcting mutation entries, but non-compliance with revenue procedure alone did not establish criminality

The Court found that Mutation Entries Nos. 10901 and 11213 recorded the legal heirs of the petitioner’s father, while the corresponding 7/12 extract omitted the notation identifying Siddik as head of the family.

That discrepancy could have caused confusion and supported the possibility of an inadvertent error when the later entry was made; the record did not establish that the respondents deliberately fabricated documents or acted with dishonest intent

The Court also considered that Respondent No. 2 had applied to correct the revenue record on 5 June 2013—before the petitioner said he discovered the issue—and that Mutation Entry No. 15352 subsequently recorded all the heirs

In the absence of material indicating criminal intent, the allegations did not cross the threshold for proceeding on the charged offences.

The Magistrate and Sessions Court had considered the relevant records and inquiry reports, and the petitioner had not challenged Mutation Entry No. 14721 before the revenue authorities

It found no basis to interfere with the orders dismissing the complaint and dismissed the writ petition; no direction under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was granted