1 2025:CGHC:21795 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Judgment reserved on 21/ 02 /2025) (Judgment Delivered on 09/05/2025) CRR No. 625 of 2020 Tirthraj Agrawal S/o Shri R.B. Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Tapkara Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pusaur, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Sandeep Singh & Mr. Danish Siddiqui, Advocates For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma CAV JUDGMENT Heard. 1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the impugned order framing of charge dated 13/01/2016 against the applicant passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, C.G. and consequential charge- sheet against the applicant for alleged commission of offence ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.05.12 18:22:34 +0530 2 punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B, 34, 506-B of IPC. 2. The brief facts of this case are that applicant was posted as Deputy Collector at Raigarh Cum Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh from 6th March, 2013 to 2nd August, 2014. During that period, he was also working as a designated Officer for Land Acquisition as per notification of the State Government. At Tehsil Pusaur there is one Village named Jhilgitar. A big chunk of land of aforesaid village was under acquisition (presently has been acquired) for a project of National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC in short) and land admeasuring 160 Hectares was under acquisition. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 05/10/2012 in the official gazette for acquisition and finally after hearing the parties. Under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act award was passed on 11/11/2013 by the present applicant as land Acquisition Officer according to the notification of the state No. 7-13/Seven-3/2010 dated 17/08/2010, the award is required to be approved by the Revenue Commissioner/Secretary, Department of Revenue as the case may be, where the compensation to be paid under Award exists Rs. 5 Crores for project of any company or in other cases when it exceeds Rs. 3 Crores in case of other acquisition for public purposes. 3. After passing of award it was approved by the Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur/Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue Vide approval dated 07/10/2013. After having approved the 3 amount of compensation to be distributed to the land oustees the same was transferred to the concerned Treasury by the State authorities for onward payment of the same through cheque by the officer of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer. On 17.04.2014 one applicant Girdhari Agrawal appeared before the present applicant with an application contending that he apprehends some dispute in Division of land amongst the members of the family and apprehending the disputes he wanted to return back the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs and with this intent he moved the application along with the copy of the demand drafts to the tune of Rs. 7,00,833/-. The applicant received the application and demand drafts, which were handed over to his clerk with his remark for deposit of the said demand draft in the bank. Thereafter, some anonymous complaint has been made to the Collector Raigarh thereby mentioning inter-alia that in Gram Jhilgitar at Khasra No. 16/190 to 16/197 total 5 or 6 new accounts have been opened in the bank and the cheques which hve been issued by the Office of SDM on 9/12/2013 the said cheques have been withdrawn from the bank which were deposited in the new Bank Account, this perjury is to be inquired on the basis of the aforesaid complaint. On the basis of the said complaint a committee for inquiry has been constituted of 3 member committee (1) joint collector, Raigarh (2) Superintendent Land Record, Raigarh(3) Revenue Inspector, workload, Raigarh. On the aforesaid complaint the Sub-Registrar, Raigarh has supplied the sale deed of land at Gram Jhilgitar khasra 16/16 rakba 2.217 hectares and 16/2 rakba admeasuring 0.817 hectares 4 total rakba 3.034 hectares in which the said land has been purchased by the Rakesh Kumar Goyal from Uppal Pal Singh vide registered sale deed dated. 27.04.2004 and 14.05.2012. 4. Sanction of the prosecution in respect of the applicant and one Sanjay Somawar the then Tehsildar (Pussore) Raigarh a combined sanction for the prosecution has been granted in which it has been categorically been mentioned that, firstly the Khata Vibhajan (Account Division) from Rakesh Goyal to 7 different names have been done by the proposal No. 119 on 26/12/2012 by the Gram Panchayat Vide Namantaran No.900, year 2011-12 and said entry has been done in the namantaran Panji by Patwari Keshav Prasad Rathiya in the said namantran Panji there was a seal and signature of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kathni namely Raj Kumar Gupta, Sachiv Subhagiya, where there but the signature of khatedar's were not there meaning thereby the said vibhajan was done in an illegal manner the kisankitab has been prepared by the Keshav Prasad Rathiya, showing entry of all the seven person but the caste has not been shown in the KisanKitab, the signature of S.K. Somawar the then Tehsildar, Pussore and signature of patwari Keshav Prasad Rathiya are there on the photograph a fixed in the Kisan Kitab, the seal of Keshav Prasad Rathiya is there but the same has to be certified by the Tehsildar which has not been done. After enquiry it has been revealed that the photos are not of actual account holder but it goes to show that there is a conspiracy done by the PatwariKeshav Prasad Rathiya, Sanjay Somawar the then Tehsildar and the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kuthari. 5 Secondly, it has been mentioned that the Bhu-Arjan Adhikar, Raigarh (Applicant herein) has issued a cheque in the name of seven persons and these 7 persons after hiding the caste showing there caste as Gupta, Sidar and Chouhan after getting hand in glove with the bank manager of UCO bank thereby opening a fake account and disburse the amount. On the basis of the report of the Collector (Land Record Raigarh) thereby directing to register an FIR, the FIR has been register vide crime no. 79/14. Thirdly, as per the enquiry and finding it reveals that the Rakesh Kumar Goyal after hand in gloves with Patwari Keshav Prasad Rathiya "Batwaranama" has been prepared in the name of Jayshree, Akash, Sonia Sonal, Chanchal Chandni, Girdhari in which panchnama has been prepared on 26/12/12 through resolution by the gram Panchayat, fake distribution has been done and rin pushtika has been prepared by the Patwari Keshav Prasad Rathiya and certified by the Tehsildar Sanjay Somawar, it has been revealed that the Tehsildar without verifying the facts certified the rin-pustika, knowing fully well that the land is to be acquired by the NTPC project and prepared the fake documents without modifying the bhumi-swami the proposal has been made to the bhu-arjan officer this perjury has been done by the concerned Sarpanch, Sachiv, Patwari and tehsildar to just to take benefit the compensation from NTPC to each of the account holders. Fourthly, the only allegation made against the applicant is that the applicant being the land acquisition officer without verifying the credentials of co-account holder of the land of Rakesh Kumar Goyal and further without enquiring the cheques handed over to one person on 6 09.12.2013 and these co-sharers while opening a fake bank account got the amount disburse and after the complaint the beneficiaries by preparing the demand draft has deposited back to land acquisition officer. The land acquisition officer at the time of issuing of cheques not enquired the credentials of receiver of the cheques nor while receiving the demand draft the credentials of the depositor, there the applicant having hand in gloves with Rakesh Kumar Goyal on the basis of fake documents the proceedings were initiated. 5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant would contend that in the FIR there was no iota of mentioning, that there is any involvement of the applicant further in the entire investigation there is no allegation made against the applicant and surprisingly and shockingly his name find place in the charge sheet. He would next contend that it is most specific to mention that the applicant who himself has directed the concerned Tehsildar (Pussore) vide letter dated 09.05.2014, there by mentioning inter-alia that in respect of the report of the office of the Collector (Land Record) Raigarh dated 06.05.2014 for NTPC, Lara project at Gram- Jhilgitar and a false Bank account has been opened and the amount of compensation has been deposited in the aforesaid fake account therefore he has directed that the Tehsildar will proceed to register an FIR. He would next contend that due to the efforts made by the applicant the FIR has been registered and subsequently without any rhyme and reason the name of the applicant has been implicated in the charge sheet. That even otherwise, there was no loss of the public 7 checker and even not a single penny of the state has been misutilised as a matter of fact the amount which was deposited after receiving the compensation, the change in the name of the receiver was been done by the beneficiaries and the applicant was a foreigner to it. The applicant after due process of law has disbursed the amount to the person showing them as landowner and as per the name entered in Revenue Record. Whatever subsequently been done the applicant is a foreigner to the same. He would next contend that the applicant being the Land acquisition officer acted as per the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and according "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013". He would next contend that all the perjury has been done either by beneficiaries just by changing their surname and opening account in UCO bank, Raigarh and even thereafter by demanded draft the amount disburse as already been returned by the beneficiaries. 6. He would place reliance on the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Balram and Ors. Vs. Aswani Kumar Yadav and Ors. (CRR No.1423 of 1999), the law laid down by this Court in P.K. Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (CRMP No.366 of 2015), R.A. Khandelwal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (M.Cr.C. No.1029 of 2004) and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of S.P. Goel Vs. Collector of Stamps, Delhi (Civil Appeal No.11603/1995) & Radheyshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. {(2011) 3 SCC 581} and would submit 8 that applicant is also entitled for the relief from the criminal proceedings in view of the well settled legal propositions and the impugned order of framing charges dated 13/01/2016 passed by the JMFC, Raigarh, C.G. and further the impugned charge-sheet dated 02/12/2014 in Crime No.79/14 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, 34, 506 B of IPC be quashed /set-aside. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that the contention of the applicant can only be appreciated effectively after examining the witnesses and recording of evidence before the trial Court. She would next contend that for quashing of charge-sheet the material and evidence available in the present charge sheet has to be examined independently and there is prima facie material available in the charge- sheet, therefore, the charge-sheet cannot be quashed. She would lastly contend that the orders of the trial Court for framing of charges is just and proper and the instant criminal revision is devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein above and also went through the records with utmost circumscription. 9. From perusal of the documents i.e. the FIR, statement of the witnesses and other documents there is no mention of name of the petitioner in the 9 FIR or statement. The FIR was lodged against the other persons not the present petitioner and it is only in the prosecution sanction order it has been mentioned that the petitioner with an intention to give undue advantage to one Rakesh Kumar Goyal hatched a criminal conspiracy drawn proceedings on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. 10. This Court by order dated 12/03/2021 has granted interim relief in favour of the applicant, however, all of a sudden the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant. 11. Further, in order to perfectly understand the dispute, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in the Code and the Act of 1985 relating to status of Revenue Officer. 12. Section 11 of the Code defines classes of the Revenue Officers which states as under:- “11. Revenue Officers. There shall be the following classes of the Revenue Officers, namely: Commissioners (including Additional Commissioners; Settlement Commissioner (including Additional Settlement Commissioners); Collectors (including Additional Collectors); Settlement Officers; SubDivisional Officers; Assistant Collectors; Joint Collectors (including Deputy Collectors); Deputy Settlement Officers; Assistant Settlement Officers; Tahsildars (including Additional Tahsildars); Superintendents of Land Records; Naib 10 Tahsildars; Assistant Superintendents of Land Records.” 13. By Section 31 of the Code, the revenue Court has been conferred with the status of the Court and a Revenue Officer while exercising the power under Section 31 shall be a Revenue Court. Section 31 of the Code states as under:- “31. Conferral of status of Courts on Board and Revenue Officers. The Board of a Revenue Officer, while exercising power under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force to enquire into or to decide any question arising for determination between the State Government and any person or between parties to any proceedings, shall be a Revenue Court.” 14. Section 44 (1) of the Code provides appeal and appellate authorities which states as under:- “44. Appeal and appellate authorities. (1) Save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order under this Code or the rules made thereunder (a) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Sub Divisional Officer, whether or not the officer passing the order is invested with the powers of the Collector to the Sub Divisional Officer; (b) if such order is passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, whether or not invested with the powers of the Collector to the Collector; (c) if such 11 order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Settlement Officer to the Settlement Officer; (d) if such order is passed by the Revenue Officer in respect of whom a direction has been issued under subsection (3) of section 12 or subsection (2) of section 21 to such Revenue Officer as the State Government may direct; (e) if such is passed by a Collector whether exercising the powers of Collector or Settlement Officer, during the currency of the term of settlement to the Commissioner; (f) if such order is passed by a Settlement Officer, whether exercising the powers of Settlement Officer or the powers of a Collector in connection with any settlement operation unless otherwise expressly provided to the Settlement Commissioner; (g) if such order is passed by the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner to the Board.” 15. Thus, it is quite vivid that Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is a Revenue Officer within the meaning of Section 11 of the Code and while exercising powers under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force while deciding the lis between the parties, he will have the status of “Revenue Court” and order passed by the Revenue Officer including that of Tahsildar would be judicially appealable under Section 44(1) of the Code. 16. The Judicial Officer’s Protection Act, 1850 protects Judicial Officers against being sued in any Civil Court for official acts done or orders 12 passed by them in good faith under Section 1 of the Act of 1850, not only a Judge, Magistrate or Justice of Peace, a Collector or other person acting judicially are also protected against such civil action. 17. In the matter of S.P.Goel v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi {(1996) 2 SCC 573} the Supreme Court while considering the provisions in Section 1 of the Judicial Officers (Protection) Act, 1850 held as under:- “35. This section contains the common law rule of immunity of Judges which is based on the principle that a person holding a judicial office should be in a position to discharge his functions with complete independence and, what is more important, without there being in his mind fear of consequences. The scope and purpose of this Act has already been explained by this Court in Anowar Hussain v. Ajay Kumar Mukherjee in which the old decision in Teyen v. Ram Lal was approved. The position of Judges, Judicial Officers and Magistrates has since been made more secure by the enactment of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.” 18. Under Section 1 of the Act of 1985, not only a Judge, Magistrate or Justice of Peace, a Collector or other person acting judicially are also protected against such civil action. The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 goes a step ahead and provides additional protection to Judges against 13 any civil or criminal proceeding against them for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by them when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official or judicial duty or function. 19. Section 2(a) of the Act of 1985 defines meaning of Judge as under: “2. Definition. In this Act, “Judge” means not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person (a) who is empowered by law to give in any legal proceeding a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive, or (b) xxx xxx xxx.” From the above stated definition of “Judge”, it is quite vivid that every person who is required to law to give in any proceeding a judgment is a Judge, notwithstanding he is officially designated as a Judge. 20. In S.P. Goel (supra), their Lordships have held that provisions of the Act of 1850 will also be available to Collector of Stamps as Collector has been specifically mentioned along with Judges, Magistrates and Justices of Peace in the Act of 1850. 21. Thus, it is well settled ever since that no action is maintainable against a Judge for anything said or done by him in exercise of a jurisdiction 14 which vest to him. The words he speaks are protected by an absolute privileges. It was well stated by Lord Tcntcrden C.J. in Gamett Vs. Ferrand (1827) 6 B & C 611:- “This freedom from action and question at the suit of an individual is given by the law to the Judges, not so much for their own sake as for the sake of the public, and for the advancement of justice, that being free from actions, they may be free in thought and independent in judgment, as all who are to administer justice ought to be.” (Excerpts from “The Due Process of Law' by Lord Denning).” As such, this statement of law would apply to the Judges of all rank (High or Low) as provided under the Act of 1850 and the Act of 1985. 22. Section 2(a) of the Act of 1985 defines meaning of Judge: “2. Definition. In this Act, “Judge” means not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person (a) who is empowered by law to give in any legal proceeding a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive, or (b) xxx xxx xxx.” 15 23. Section 3 of the Act of 1985 provides as under: 3. Additional protection to Judges.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of subsec.(2), no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. (2) Nothing in subsec.(1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or the High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge.” 24. Section 4 of the Act of 1985 provides as under: “4. Saving. The provision of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force providing for protection of Judges.” 16 25. From perusal of Section 4 of the Act of 1985, it is quite vivid that the provisions of the Code is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force providing for protection of Judges. 26. In the present case, it is quite vivid from the definition of Section 2 of the Act of 1985 that the petitioner was empowered to give judgment or pass award in revenue proceeding. 27. Now the further question for consideration would be whether the petitioner is entitled for protection under Section 3 of the Act of 1985? 28. In Union of India v. Upendra Singh {(1994)3 SCC 257} the Supreme Court held that even an officer, while discharging judicial or quasi- judicial duties, is amenable to the disciplinary proceedings into his conduct in discharge of the duty. 29. The Supreme Court in the matter of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and others {(1999) 7 SCC 409} has held that if the revenue officer in quasijudicial adjudication has wrongly exercised his jurisdiction that wrong can be corrected in appeal. That cannot always form a basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an officer while he is acting as a quasi-judicial authority. It must be kept in mind that being a quasi-judicial authority, he is always subject to judicial supervision in appeal. 30. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter R.A. Khandelwal v. 17 State of Chhattisgarh & Others (M.Cr.C.No.1209 of 2004), decided on 1st August, 2005 quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein who while acting as competent authority under the Madhya Pradesh (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1960 passed certain order in that capacity was prosecuted for offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120B, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and held as under: “19. Section 1 of the Judicial Officer's Protection Act, 1850, Section 3(2) of the Act, 1985, and Sections 45 and 48 of the Ceiling Act, 1960 do not provide for absolute bar from civil/criminal proceedings against a person who has performed judicial functions, except in case of good faith, done or intended to be done. The Central Govt. or the State Govt. or the Supreme Court of India or the High Court or any other Authority under any law which is competent can take action by way of civil, criminal or departmental or otherwise against a person who has performed a function in exercise of his judicial/quasi judicial proceedings. The provisions of the Act 1850 and the Act 1985 and the provisions of the Ceiling Act are to prevent unnecessary harassments and frivolous prosecution of the officers for exercising his judicial/quasi judicial powers at the instance of a private party or a member of the public.” 18 31. Similarly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Balram and Ors. v. Aswani Kumar Yadav and Ors.{2001 (3) MPLJ 363} has held that the petitioner therein Naib Tahsildar/Revenue Officer who has been given status as revenue Court while exercising the power under Code/other enactment is entitled for protection under Section 3 of the Act of 1985 for an order which he passed in quasi-judicial capacity. 32. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of State of M.P. v. Rajeev Jain {2001 (4) MPHT 58} has clearly held that prosecuting agency cannot be allowed to sit in judgments or orders passed in judicial or quasi judicial side by a Judge. May be that he has mistaken or grossly mistaken, yet he acted judicially and for that, no action shall lie against him. The wrong, if any, could be corrected in appeal. That cannot always form a basis for initiation of criminal prosecution. 33. Now Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the settled legal position noticed hereinabove, it is quite vivid that the petitioner while acting as Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) after hearing the parties passed an award on 11/11/2013. Further the Additional Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department has issued an order dated 20/11/2024 whereby after making the enquiry on the representations and the replies filed by the petitioner and after due consideration, the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner by the department is decided to be closed (nastibadhh). Relevant portion of the order dated 20/11/2024 is quoted hereinbelow:- 19 छत्तीसगढ़ शासन सामान्य प्रशासन विभाग : मंत्रालय महानदी भन, नया रायपुर अटलं नगर //आदेश// नया रायपुर अटल गगर, विदनांक 20 नंबर, 2024 क्रमांकः बी-3-19/2014/एक/4: राज्य शासन द्वारा श्री तीर्थ'राज अग्राल (रा.प्र.से.. आर.आर.-08, परिरष्ठ श्रेणी) संयुक्त कलेक्टर को तत्कालीन अनुविभागीय अधि3कारी (राजस्), रायगढ़ के पद पर पदस्र्थापना के दौरान की गई अविनयविमतताओं के लिलए छत्तीसगढ़ सिसविल सेा (ग;करण, विनयंत्रण तर्था अपील) विनयम, 1986 के विनयम ७ के उप विनयम- (1) (क) के अनुसरण विभागीय आदेश विदनांक 02.08.2014 द्वारा विनलंविबत विकया गया एं उनके विरूद्ध विभागीय जांच संरिर3त कर विदनांक 04.10.2014 को आरोप पत्र जारी विकया गया र्था। 2/आरोप पत्र के संबं3 में श्री अग्राल द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रधिताद उत्तर विदनांक 17.11.2014 समा3ानकारक नहीं पाये जाने से, राज्य शासन एत द्वारा आरोपों की विस्तृत जांच हेतु, छत्तीसगढ़ सिसविल सेा (ग;करण, विनयंत्रण तर्था अपील) विनयम, 1966 के विनयम-14(5) (ख) के अंतग'त अपर आयुक्त विबलासपुर संभाग, विबलासपुर को जांचकता' अधि3कारी तर्था विनयम-14 (5) (ग) के अंतग'त अनुविभागीय अधि3कारी (राजस्), रायगढ़ को प्रस्तुतकता' अधि3कारी विनयुक्त विकया गया। 3/श्री अग्राल के विरूद्ध संस्थिस्र्थत विभागीय जांच में समय लगने की संभाना को देखते हुए विचारोपरांत उन्हें आदेश विदनांक 05.05.2016 द्वारा विनलंबन से बहाल विकया गया। 4/जांघकता' अधि3कारी द्वारा प्राप्त जांच प्रधितेदन विदनांक 20.05.2020 पर अपचारी अधि3कारी श्री अग्राल से प्रधितउत्तर प्राप्त विकया गया एं समक्ष में सुनाई विकया गया। 5/ श्री अग्राल से प्राप्त अभ्याेदन एं समक्ष में सुनाई उपरांत जांच प्रधितेदन विदनांक 20.05.2020 पर शासन द्वारा पूण' विचारोपरांत श्री तीर्थ'राज अग्राल (रा.प्र.से.) के विरुद्ध संस्थिस्र्थत विभागीय जाचं प्रकरण को नस्तीबद्ध करने का विनण'य लिलया गया है। 6/अतए 'राज्य' शासन एतद्द्वारा श्री तीर्थ'राज अग्राल (रा.प्र.से.) के विरूद्ध संस्थिस्र्थत विभागीय जॉच प्रकरण को नस्तीबद्ध करता है। छत्तीसगढ़ के राज्यपाल के नाम से तर्था आदेशानुसार, (क्ले मेन्टीना लकड़ा) अर सधिच छत्तीसगढ़ शासन सामान्य प्रशासन विभाग 34. Further the perusal of the FIR would show that the name of the present applicant was not in the FIR and subsequently his name has been added and even in the statements of all the witnesses and documents, no allegation has been leveled against the present applicant. 20 35. In view of the aforesaid analysis, initiation of criminal case against the applicant for passing an award in the capacity of a Revenue Officer cannot be termed as offence as his act is fully protected by the provisions contained in Section 2 and 3 of the Act, 1985 and there is no allegation against the present applicant in the whole chrage-sheet, there is no documentary evidence against the applicant, there is no mention of his name in the FIR as well as in 161 Cr.P.C. statement made by the witnesses nothing has been deposed against the present applicant, therefore, the charges framed against the petitioner dated 13/01/2016 passed by the learned JMFC, Raigarh, C.G. and the impugned charge dated 02/12/2024 in Criminal Case No.1128/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, 34, 506B of IPC are hereby set aside sine qua the petitioner and the petitioner is discharged from the above charges. 36. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Ashu