FIR quashed against revenue officer for merely recording sale deed absent forgery or conspiracy.

The petitioner, original accused No. 18, was serving as a Deputy Mamlatdar in the E-Dhara section at the Mamlatdar’s office, Pardi, when the alleged offences occurred.

The FIR, C.R. No. I-171/2008, registered at Vapi Town Police Station, alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 161, 191, 192, 193 and 114 of the IPC.

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were alleged to have transferred the informant’s land into their own names; accused Nos. 3 to 17 were co-owners, while accused Nos. 18 to 22 were revenue officers.

The allegation against the petitioner was principally that he certified the revenue entry on the basis of a registered sale deed, allegedly fraudulent in nature, and failed to hand over original documents to his successor.

Proceedings against other revenue officers had previously been quashed by coordinate Benches, and the dispute between the principal private parties had been settled; the complainant had also withdrawn the related civil suit.

Despite service, the original complainant did not appear before the High Court.

Whether the FIR and all consequential proceedings should be quashed qua the petitioner, whose alleged role was limited to entering/certifying the details of a registered sale deed, without any allegation that he forged the document.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law after settlement between the principal private parties and quashing of the FIR against the main accused and other revenue officers.

The Court applied its jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings where continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when the underlying private dispute has been settled and the allegations against the applicant do not disclose an independent criminal role.

The Court relied on the coordinate Bench’s orders in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12758 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 20097 of 2020, under which the FIR had been quashed against other revenue officers on account of the settlement and the absence of allegations showing their participation in the principal conspiracy.

The substantive offences invoked in the FIR were Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 161, 191, 192, 193 and 114 of the IPC.

The Court found that the petitioner’s role was limited to entering or certifying the details contained in the registered sale deed submitted to him, and that there was no allegation that he had participated in forging the sale deed or other document.

Since the principal dispute between the private parties had already been amicably resolved, the related civil suit had been withdrawn, and the FIR had been quashed against the main accused and similarly placed revenue officers, the Court held that the petitioner could not be compelled to undergo prosecution in circumstances where no distinct criminal conspiracy or fraudulent act was attributed to him.

The State did not dispute the earlier quashing orders, and the complainant’s non-appearance after service further left the petitioner’s case uncontested.

Accordingly, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner was considered legally unwarranted and an abuse of process.

The Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.