Himachal Pradesh High Court
Govind Ram vs State Of H.P. And Others on 22 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:5578 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.975 of 2022.
.
Reserved on: 08.07.2024.
Date of Decision: 22.07.2024.
Govind Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Others ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State.
Respondent No.4 already exparte.
Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to investigate the matter as per the law. It has been asserted that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata No.8/12 min, Khatuni No.1/13 min, Khasra No. 131, measuring 00-02-12 Bighas, situated at Mohal Dhanyari/45, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 20:34:04 :::CIS 2Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner's wife is the owner of adjacent Khasra No.132. The petitioner constructed a cow shed .
on land comprised in Khasra No.131 about 16-17 years ago. He used it to keep his cattle for 11-12 years. He constructed a new house at Mandi and shifted to Mandi. The old cowshed fell into disuse.
Accused Paras Ram and Nalwatri Devi came to the petitioner in July 2015 and requested him to permit them to tie their cattle in the cowshed. The petitioner permitted them to do so. The petitioner asked them to vacate the cowshed on 24.06.2018 as he intended to keep his cattle in the cowshed. However, the accused abused the petitioner instead of vacating the cowshed. The petitioner reported the matter to the police. He also served a notice upon the accused.
The police did not take any action in the matter and the petitioner brought all the facts to the notice of Superintendent of Police Mandi. The petitioner also filed a civil suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for the recovery of the possession and the mesne profits. Sh. Labh Singh, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Badi Gumanoo issued a certificate that cowshed did not exist on the land of an individual but on the land in possession of Pumba Ram and thereafter it was in possession of Paras Ram. Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Badi Guana had no authority to issue the certificate. He ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 20:34:04 :::CIS 3 is not a revenue expert. In this manner, Labh Singh framed incorrect records to save accused Paras Ram and Nalwatri Devi .
from punishment and to give unfair and undue advantage to them.
FIR No. 76 of 2020, dated 10.03.2020, was registered in Police Station Sadar Mandi for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The police did not associate the petitioner in the investigation. The police failed to include Sections 218, 219 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) even though sufficient material existed before it to invoke the sections. The petitioner requested Superintendent of Police, Mandi to add the sections but he was informed that the police had prepared a challan for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Police have also not arrayed Munish Kumar, Hitesh Kumar and Labh Singh as the accused. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition to seek a direction to the police to investigate the matter as per the law and include Sections 218, 219 and 120B of IPC and add Munish Kumar, Hitesh Kumar and Labh Singh as the accused.
2. The respondent/State has filed a reply asserting that the police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 20:34:04 :::CIS 4 offences punishable under Sections 218, 219 and 120B of IPC were not found to have been committed and these sections were deleted.
.
Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
3. No reply was filed by the private respondents.
4. I have heard Mr Ashwani Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State and Mr Lovneesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
5. Mr. Ashwani Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police did not conduct the proper investigation.
The police failed to add Sections 218, 219 and 120B of IPC even though these offences were found to have been committed. The challan was wrongly filed before the Gram Panchayat and as per the information supplied, no such charge sheet is available in the record of Gram Panchayat. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and necessary direction be issued to the police to include Sections 218, 219 and 120B of IPC.
6. Ms Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3-State submitted that the police conducted a proper investigation into the matter. Ingredients of the ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 20:34:04 :::CIS 5 commission of offences punishable under Sections 218, 219 and 120B of IPC were not found to be satisfied after the investigation.
.
Hence, these sections were deleted. The challan was filed before the competent authority, which is Gram Panchayat in the present case.
As per the road certificate, the file was handed over to the Gram Panchayat; therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that no allegations were made against the respondent No.5 and he cannot be impleaded as an accused.
8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
9. It was specifically stated in the petition that Sh. Labh Singh had no authority to issue the certificate that was issued by him because he is not a revenue expert. Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for a public servant charged with the preparation of any record or other writing and who frames that record or writing incorrectly with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause loss or injury to the public or any other person.
Thus, the basic requirement of Section 218 of IPC is that public ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 20:34:04 :::CIS 6 servant should have been charged with the preparation of any record or writing. In the present case no Statute, Rule or Regulation .
was brought to the notice of this Court, which authorised the Pradhan to issue the certificate regarding the situation of a cowshed. Therefore even if it is assumed that the contents of the certificate are false, the basic requirements that a public servant should have been charged with maintaining a record is not satisfied in the present case.
10. Section 219 of the IPC punishes a public servant who corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces any report, order, verdict or decision in any stage of judicial proceedings, therefore, this Section can be invoked when the public servant was conducting a judicial proceedings. There is no whisper in the present petition that accused Labh Singh was conducting any judicial proceedings and he had prepared a report while conducting those proceedings.
Hence, the requirement of Section 219 of IPC is also not satisfied in the present case.
11. Once, it is held that the requirements of Sections 218 and 219 of IPC are not satisfied in the present case, the plea of the petitioner that Labh Singh had entered into a conspiracy to frame ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 20:34:04 :::CIS 7 incorrect records also falls through. The police have already filed a chargesheet against accused Paras Ram and Nalwatri for the .
commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
12. It was also submitted that as per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act obtained by the petitioner, no case is pending before the Gram Panchayat Badi Gumano. The police have filed the road certificate No. 390/2020 dated 30.12.2020, vide which the case file in FIR No.76/20 was received by Labh Singh on 04.01.2021. Hence, the plea that no case is pending before the Gram Panchayat is not correct.
13. Consequently, no direction can be issued in the present petition; hence, the present petition is dismissed.
14. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22nd July, 2024 (Nikita) ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 20:34:04 :::CIS