Himachal Pradesh High Court
Swarup Chand vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 26 July, 2019
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
Cr.MMO No. 561 of 2018
Date of decision: July 26, 2019.
Swarup Chand. ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ......Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge .
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.
For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore and Mr. Narender
Guleria, Addl. AGs, for respondent No.
1.
Mr. Vinod K. Thakur, Advocate, for
respondents No. 2 and 4 to 6.
Nemo for respondent No. 3.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)
In this petition, order Annexure P-5, whereby learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. I, Hamirpur has accepted the cancellation report and closed the case registered against the respondents-accused No. 2 to 6 vide FIR No. 13 of 2015 under Sections 418, 420, 466, 408, 468, 469, 504, 506(b) 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:20:20 :::HCHP 2and under 120-B IPC in Police Station, Sujanpur District Hamirpur is under challenge.
.
2. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that no evidence connecting the respondents No. 2 to 6-accused with the commission of the offence could be collected by the investigating officer. On the other hand, the extract of Pariwar Register, Mutation Register, Jamabandi, Rapat Rojnamcha, Will of Gopala Ram etc. taken in possession during the course of investigation were suggestive of that the name of complainant and his family members were available there in such record. The mother and sister of the petitioner-complainant during the course of investigation have stated specifically that he was missing since the year 1972 and 1973. He returned home only in the year 2004 on the death of Gopala Ram, the father of the petitioner-
complainant. Mutation was attested in his name also along with other co-sharers. Therefore, learned trial Judge taking into consideration the objection to the cancellation report that the investigation conducted by the investigating agency is not fair or that the I.O. threatened him to withdraw the complaint, the trial court has accepted the cancellation report with the observations that the petitioner-complainant cannot be treated as a layman or a rustic villager. He was duly represented by a legal practitioner in the application he filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:20:20 :::HCHP 33. This Court vide order dated 24.5.2019 expressing its doubt that after striking out the name of the petitioner from .
Parivar register in the year 2012 the same has not been re-
incorporated, directed learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions in the matter. The instructions were received and learned Additional Advocate General has apprised this Court on the previous date that the entry in the parivar register showing the petitioner-complainant "missing" stand deleted and his name is entered along with other members of his family at serial No. 112 of the Parivar Register. The order passed on the previous date reads as follow:
"Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the written instructions. The copy of Parivar Register duly attested by the Assistant Commissioner (Development)-
cum-Block Development Officer, Sujanpur, District Hamirpur and other relevant record has also been annexed thereto. The affidavit of Swaroop Chand dated 16.5.2011 stating therein the names of his family members for making entires in the family register has also been annexed to the written instructions. As per resolution of Gram Panchayat dated 1.1.2012, the entries qua the petitioner made previously in 1979 in the Parivar Register "missing" have been deleted and it was unanimously resolved to enter his name in the Gram Panchayat. Consequently, his name and that of other members of his family have ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:20:20 :::HCHP 4 been entered against Serial No. 112 in the Parivar Register. Learned counsel seeks .
adjournment to have instructions in the matter. Allowed. List on 26.07.2019."
4. In view of the order passed on the previous date and also the reasons recorded hereinabove, it would not be improper to conclude that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while accepting the cancellation report filed by the investigating agency after conducting investigation in the case registered against respondents No. 2 to 6 vide FIR No. 13 of 2015 in Police Station, Sujanpur, District Hamirpur.
5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2017 decided vide impugned order Annexure P-7 dated 20.9.2018 has up-held the order passed by learned trial Court and dismissed the review petition.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
July 26, 2019, ( vs) ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:20:20 :::HCHP