Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arjun Ram Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 December, 2023
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2023:RJ-JD:42365]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1953/2014
Arjun Ram Meghwal son of late Shri Lekhu Ram Meghwal, C-66,
Kanta Khaturiya Colony, Johiya Market, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Hakam Ali son of M. Khan, resident of A-26, Sainik Basti,
Churu.
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4070/2019
Arjun Ram Meghwal S/o Shri Lekhuram Meghwal, Aged About
55 Years, C-66, Kanta Khaturiya Colony, Johiya Market,
Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. The Learned Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Cases,
Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur
Ms. Rachita Mathur
Mr. Jagdish Solanki
Mr. Niklesh Parwani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG
assisted by Mr. Rohit Mutha
Mr. D.L. Rawla
Mr. Jagdish Vishnoi
Mr. P.K. Rawla for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order 08/12/2023 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1953/2014
1. This criminal misc. petition is preferred against the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (2 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Judge') in FR No. 23/2013 in FIR No. 220/2010, Police Station Churu, CPS Jaipur for the offenes under Sections 13(1)(D) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, whereby, the learned Judge has directed the investigating agency for further investigation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent No.2 filed a complaint stating therein that on 22.06.2007 a committee was constituted by the District Collector as ex-officio Chairman of Sainik Basti, Churu for allotment of certain plots in Sainik Basti, Churu. At that time the petitioner was holding the post of District Collector, Churu and the said committee was comprising of Additional Collector, Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsildar, Chairman District Ex-soldiers Association and District Sainik Welfare Officer. In this regard the Collector has framed guidelines for allotment of plots/lands for commercial purpose and their conversion & regularization.
3. It is alleged that the Collector was final authority for allotment of plots. In the guidelines it is provided that 75% plots should be allotted to Ex-soldiers, widows of soldiers, gallantry award holders and the soldiers who have participated in national & state level tournaments and rest 25% plots should be allotted to State & Central Government employees and citizens, who have been honoured at the state level. The rats of plots were also prescribed @ Rs.340 per sq. mtr. for officer level, Rs.240/- per sq. mtr. for junior commissioned officers and Rs.140/- per sq. mtr. for non commissioned and low paid employees. It is further alleged that when the petitioner was holding the post of Collector, Churu (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (3 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] cum Chairman, Sainik Basti, in utter violation of the guidelines, plots have been allotted.
4. On the said complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and the Preliminary Inquiry Officer verified the contents of the allegation and thereafter an FIR was instituted against the present petitioner and other co-accused. On the aforesaid allegations, the Anti Corruption Bureau carried out the investigation and after investigation negative final report was submitted before the learned trial Judge and vide order dated 25.10.2013 the learned Judge sent the matter for re-investigation to the A.C.B.
5. Pursuant to the order dated 25.10.2013 the matter was re- investigated and again final report, exonerating the present petitioner, was submitted before the learned trial Judge.
6. Learned trial Judge on the protest petition filed by respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2014, which is under challenge in this criminal misc. petition.
7. It is contended that the learned trial Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction and passed the order impugned against the well settled principles of law. The direction issued to the investigating agency in a particular manner or to collect a particular evidence is against the proposition of settled law. It is also contended that in the present matter detailed investigation was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau and a final report stating that no offence is made out against the present petitioner was submitted before the learned trial court.
8. It is further contended that after passing the order by the learned trial court on 25.10.2013 again the investigation was carried out and second negative final report was submitted before (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (4 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] the learned trial Judge. It is contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that prima facie no offence is made out against the present petitioner. A perusal of the FIR indicates that the FIR was lodged just to harass & humiliate the present petitioner. It is contended that the guidelines were framed by the petitioner and the same were followed while making allotment of the plots. It is contended that respondent No.2 himself was encroacher and petitioner as the then Collector ordered for removal of his encroachment. In the investigation it was found that these plots were to be allotted to the persons, who were residence of Churu District but due to typographical error in the minutes of the meeting Tehsildar, Churu was written. No allotment was made to a person, who was not resident of Churu District, therefore, the present criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 08.07.2014 may be quashed & set aside as well as the FIR No.220/2010 lodged by complainant may also be quashed & set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner fervently argued that the impugned order directing the police for exhaustive investigation falls within the ambit of re-investigation and such an order by the learned trial Judge transgresses the statutory powers conferred under the provisions of Section 173 Cr.PC. Admittedly the matter has been exhaustively investigated twice by the police authorities categorically concluding that no case is made out against the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(D) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that earlier the learned trial Judge after submission of the first negative report (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (5 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] vide order dated 25.10.2013 directed the police to investigate the matter on certain points and vide impugned order dated 08.07.2014 again formulated the points for which investigation has already been conducted twice, therefore, the impugned order is perse illegal and against the settled canons of the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore the impugned order may be set aside.
11. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the state justified the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order falls within the precinct of the powers conferred to the Magistrate under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the criminal petition may be dismissed.
12. Before dealing with the present controversy it would be relevant to mention the powers of a Magistrate directing an investigation.
13. Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. contemplates that:-
"Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)."
14. In Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar : (2009) 6 SCC 346, Hon'ble the Apex Court discerned that "further investigation"
referred to additional, supplemental investigation.
15. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat : (2004) 5 SCC 347, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that further investigation was necessary to arrive at the truth and achieve justice. (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (6 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014]
16. In Ramachandran Vs. R. Udhayakumar : (2008) 5 SCC 413, "further investigation" was distinguished from "re-investigation", as the latter wiped out earlier investigations. Hon'ble the Apex Court deduced that further investigation could be carried out if required under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C..
17. In the case of - Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya Vs. State of Gujarat : Criminal Appeal Nos. 478-479 of 2017 it was held that a fair trial is a dimension of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and thus investigating officer should collect all the evidence to find the real truth and to serve the ends of justice, and therefore even after filing the police report if there is a chance of collection of more evidence then the investigating officer shall continue with the investigation to collect those evidence and if he does not do so then the Magistrate has the power to order such 'Further Investigation' in the interest of justice. The court held that Article 21 is omnipresent and CrPC shall be interpreted in light of Article 21.
18. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors : CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2040-2041 OF 2012 ( Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.9185-9186 of 2009), decided on 13 December 2012 categorically specified the terms "Further investigation" viz a viz to reinvestigation / denovo investigation / fresh investigation in following terms :-
"15. 'Further investigation' is where the Investigating Officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence after the final report has been filed before the Court in terms of Section 173(8). This power is vested with the Executive. It is the continuation of a previous investigation and, therefore, is understood and described as a 'further investigation'. Scope of such investigation is restricted to the discovery of further oral and documentary evidence. Its purpose is to bring the true facts before the Court even if they are discovered at a (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (7 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] subsequent stage to the primary investigation. It is commonly described as 'supplementary report'. 'Supplementary report' would be the correct expression as the subsequent investigation is meant and intended to supplement the primary investigation conducted by the empowered police officer. Another significant feature of further investigation is that it does not have the effect of wiping out directly or impliedly the initial investigation conducted by the investigating agency. This is a kind of continuation of the previous investigation. The basis is discovery of fresh evidence and in continuation of the same offence and chain of events relating to the same occurrence incidental thereto. In other words, it has to be understood in complete contradistinction to a 'reinvestigation', 'fresh' or 'de novo' investigation.
16. However, in the case of a 'fresh investigation', 'reinvestigation' or 'de novo investigation' there has to be a definite order of the court. The order of the Court unambiguously should state as to whether the previous investigation, for reasons to be recorded, is incapable of being acted upon. Neither the Investigating agency nor the Magistrate has any power to order or conduct 'fresh investigation'. This is primarily for the reason that it would be opposed to the scheme of the Code. It is essential that even an order of 'fresh'/'de novo' investigation passed by the higher judiciary should always be coupled with a specific direction as to the fate of the investigation already conducted. The cases where such direction can be issued are few and far between. This is based upon a fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence which is that it is the right of a suspect or an accused to have a just and fair investigation and trial. This principle flows from the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Where the investigation ex facie is unfair, tainted, mala fide and smacks of foul play, the courts would set aside such an investigation and direct fresh or de novo investigation and, if necessary, even by another independent investigating agency. As already noticed, this is a power of wide plenitude and, therefore, has to be exercised sparingly. The principle of rarest of rare cases would squarely apply to such cases. Unless the unfairness of the investigation is such that it pricks the judicial conscience of the Court, the Court should be reluctant to interfere in such matters to the extent of quashing an investigation and directing a 'fresh investigation'."
19. Thus from the above law, it is obvious that the Magistrate has ample power under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to send the matter for further investigation but he cannot direct the police to re- investigate or investigate the matter denovo. Such powers can only be exercised by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (8 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014]
20. On the touchstone of the above law, it is to be seen whether the impugned order directing the police falls within the precinct of further investigation or virtually amounts to re-investigation. If the points formulated for investigation have already been investigated then certainly the order of the Magistrate cannot be sustained.
21. The learned trial Judge after submission of the second negative final report on the protest petition filed by the complainant passed the following operative order while formulating certain points for the investigation:-
"vr% ge ikrs gSa fd vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh j.k/khjflag us tks iwjd vuqla/kku fd;k gS mlesa mudh vuqla/kkfud ,D;wesu o fu'i{krk mtkxj ugha gksrhA blfy;s ge ikrs gSa fd mijksDr iz"uksa dk lEiw.kZ (Exhaustive) vuqla/kku ,l-ih- Lrj ds vf/kdjh Jh j.k/khjflag }kjk ugha dj dsoy yhikiksrh ek= dh xbZ ,oa bl ekeys esa vfxze LisflfQd vuqla/kku ds fy, ge fcUnqvksa dk fu/kkZj.k djuk mfpr ikrs gSa tks bl izdkj gS%& ¼1½ o'kZ 1986 ls py jgs iqjkus jftLVj dks bXuksj D;ksa fd;k x;k o ;fn bXuksj fd;k x;k rks 2007 ds fu;eksa ¼xkbZM ykbZUl½ ds rgr u;s vkosnu vkeaf=r djrs le; iqjkus vkosndks dks bl ckr ds fy, vkxkg D;ksa ugha fd;k x;k fd os u;s fljs ls vkosnu djsa ;k fd iwoZ vkosndksa dks u;s fljs ls vkosnu djus dh vko";drk ugha gS o muds iqjkus vkosnu gh ekU; gksxsaA ¼2½ vkosnuksa dks izfØ;kuqlkj ntZ jftLVj djus ls igys iVokjh ls mudh tkap D;ksa ugha djokbZ xbZ o ;g ln~Hkkoh pwd Fkh ;k nwHkkZoukiw.kZ d`R; \ ¼3½ vkoaVu ds ckn ik=rk ds laca/k esa "kiFk i= dqN vkoafV;ksa ls D;ksa yxok;s x;s o D;k mUgsa vuko";d voS/k :i ls ykHk igaqpkus ds fy, fd;k x;k \ ¼4½ pw: rglhy ,oa pw: ftys ds ckgj ds yksxksa dks Hkw[k.M vkoafVr D;ksa fd;s x;s tcfd blds ckjs esa cSBd esa foifjr fu.kZ; fy;k x;k FkkA ¼5½ jktLFkku esa dksbZ fjgk;lh ;k vU; Hkw[k.M ugha gksus ds "kiFk i= ds vHkko ds ckotwn ;k fcuk ,slh ?kks'k.kk ds lR;kiu djok;s ;k ,slk dksbZ nwljk Hkw[k.M muds ikl miyC/k gksrs gq, Hkh vkoafV;ksa dks Hkw[k.M vkoafVr D;ksa dj fd;s x;sA ¼6½ MkW0 ,Q- ,p- xksjh dks tks [kkapk Hkwfe ds :i esa vkoaVu fd;k x;k gS D;k og okLro esa [kkapk Hkwfe Fkh D;ksafd bl Hkwfe dk uki 118 QqV X 28-5 QqV = 3363 oxZQqV Fkk tks [kkapk Hkwfe dh ifjHkk'kk esa ugha gks ldrk o D;k brus cM+s Hkw[k.M dks [kkapk Hkwfe ds :i esa (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (9 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] MkW0 ,Q-,p- xksjh dks cnfu;fro"k voS/k ykHk igqapkus ds fy;s fd;k x;k \ ¼7½ ftu vkoafV;ksa dks lSfud Js.kh esa ugha gksus ds ckotwn ,Q-vkbZ- vkj- vuqlkj lSfud Js.kh esa Mkyk x;k muds ckjs esa nLrkosth lk{; bdV~Bh dh tkdj fu'd'kZ D;ksa ugha fn;s x;s \ ¼8½ D;k fdlh vkoaVh dks ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- esa yxk;s x;s vk{ksiksa vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr dher ls de dher ij Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;s x;s o ;fn gkW rks fdu fdu dks o blds ihNs D;k m)s"; Fkk \ ¼9½ blds vfrfjDr ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- esa tks Hkh vk{ksi vtqZu es?koky o vU; ds fo:) vokaNuh; fØ;kdyki djus ds fy;s yxk;s x;s gSa mu ij Hkh vuqla/kku D;ksa ugha fd;k x;k \ ¼10½ D;k lSfud cuke vlSfud vkoaVuks esa izfØ;kuqlkj 75 izfr"kr o 25 izfr"kr dk vuqikr j[kk x;k] D;ksafd 25 dh vkoaVu fyLV is"k gqbZ gS mlesa 15 lSfud Js.kh esa o 10 vlSfud Js.kh esa gS tks fd mDr vuqikr esa ugh gS o blds D;k dkj.k Fks \ vr% mDr ,Q-vkj- i=koyh egkfuns"kd iqfyl Hkz'Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks] t;iqj dks Hkstdj funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os ,l-ih- Lrj ds mPpkf/kdkjh ls Åij of.kZr fcUnqvksa ij lEiw.kZ (Exhaustive) vfxze vuqla/kku djokosa o urhtk nks ekg esa bl U;k;ky; esa is"k fd;k tkos o bl ckjs esa muds }kjk fu;qDr vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dh lwpuk Hkh bl U;k;ky; dks iszf'kr dh tkos o funsZf"kr fd;k tkos fd og vkxkeh rkjh[k ij urhtk ysdj U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr vkosaA"
22. It is admitted position that on submission of the first negative report, the learned trial Judge vide order dated 25.10.2013 formulated certain questions and pursuant to the directions investigation was conducted on the points formulated by the learned trial Judge and the police did not find commission of any offence against the present petitioner and other co-accused under Prevention of Corruption Act.
23. This Court also called for a factual report. The learned Public Prosecutor procured the report dated 17.09.2014 from the Directorate Anti Corruption Bureau and submitted it for perusal.
24. Pursuant to learned trial Judge's directions dated 25.10.2023 the second investigation officer arrived at the following conclusions:-
"1. Mk- ,Q-,p- xkSjh dks vkoafVr Hkw&[k.M ls lacaf/kr i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ij ik;k x;k gS fd Mk- ,Q-,p- xkSjh dks o'kZ 2005 esa mudh mRd`'V fpfdRlk lsokvksa ds fy, jkT; ljdkj ds Lrj rFkk Hkkjr ds jk'Vªifr }kjk iz"kfLr iznku fd;s x;s gSA Mk0 xkSjh dks (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (10 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] vkoafVr Hkw[k.M dh i=oyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkw[k.M [kkapk Hkwfe 36 X 8-70 ehVj vkoafVr fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd Mk0 xkSjh dks vkoafVr Hkw[k.M dk dksbZ uEcj ugha gS] ijUrq ;g Hkwfe vkoaVu gsrq miyC/k FkhA ;g Hkw[k.M vkoaVu gsrq viyC/k gksuk blls Hkh izekf.kr gS fd mDr [kkapk Hkwfe ls lVs gq;s Hkw[k.M la- ,&26 ds vkoaVh Jh gkde vyh }kjk Hkh mDr [kkapk Hkwfe dks Lo;a ds i{k esa vkoafVr djus gsrq ftyk dysDVj dks vkosnu fd;k x;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr rglhynkj pw: us tkap ls Mk- xkSjh dks vkoafVr mDr Hkw[k.M ij iwoZ esa gkde vyh dk vukf/kd`r dCtk ik;k x;k gSA Mk0 xkSjh dks ;g Hkw[k.M jkt; Lrj ij lEekfur ukxfjdksa dh Js.kh esa vkoafVr fd;k x;k gSA blls iwoZ Hkh o'kZ 1996 esa pkSFkey dykdkj uke ds O;fDr dks jk'Vªh; Lrj ij lEekfur gksus ij cM+h lkbZt dk Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;k x;k gSA Mk- xkSjh }kjk ekuuh; jkt0 mPp U;k;ky; esa vUrxZr 482 lhvkjihlh esa nk;j ;kfpdk dk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj cSap }kjk [kkfjt dj fuLrkj.k fd;k tk pqdk Fkk] ijUrq Mk- xkSjh }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj esa iqu% ;kfpdk fØeh-fel- vihy is"k dh] tks fnukad 31-1-12 dks 57@12 ntZ gksdj yfEcr gksuk ik;k x;k gSA
2. vkjksfir vf/kdjh Jh vtqZu es?koky }kjk] "ks'k jgs Hkw&[k.Mksa ds vkoaVu ds laca/k esa ,d Nkuchu lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k FkkA mDr Nkuchu lfefr dh fnukad 20-08-08 dks ,d cSBd gqbZ ftlesa lfefr ds lnL;ksa }kjk vU; izLrkoksa ds lkFk ^^ftys ls ckgj ds** vkosndksa ij fopkj ugha fd;s tkus ds izLrko dk mYys[k gSA fnukad 21-8-08 dks vkoaVu lfefr dh cSBd dk;Zokgh fooj.k ds fcUnq la- 6 esa Nkuchu lfefr ds mDr izLrko ds Øe esa pq: rglhy ls ckgj ds vkosndksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxk esa ^^pw: rglhy ds ckgj ds vkosndksa** dk mYys[k] Vad.k Hkwy gh gS D;ksafd Nkuchu lfefr dh cSBd dk;Zokgh fnukad 20-08-08 esa ^^ftys ds ckgj ds vkosndksa** dk gh mYys[k gS u fd pw: rglhy ls ckgj ds vkosndksa dkA ftu vkosndksa dks Hkw[k.M vkoafVr ugha fd;s x;s muds vkosnu i= fujLr djus ds laca/k esa vuqla/kku ls bl izfØ;k dk izpyu iwoZ ls gh ugha gksuk ik;k x;k gSA
3. lSfud cLrh pw: esa Hkw[k.M gsrq izkIr vkosnu i=ksa dk izFke jftLVj o'kZ 1986 ls izkjEHk gksdj fnukad 12-06-2007 rd izkIr vkosnu i=ksa dk bUnzkt gSA f}rh; vkosnu izkfIr jftLVj fnukad 05- 07-2007 ls izkjEHk fd;k x;k gSA izFke jftLVj lknk dkxtksa dk jftLVj cukdj la/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS tks o'kZ 1986 ls la/kkfjr gS] ftlds voyksdu ls dkxt iqjkus izrhr gksrs gSA iqjkus jftLVj dks fujLr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj uk gh mDr jftLVj esa fujLrh dk dksbZ mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA nksuksa jftLVj frfFkokj la/kkfjr fd;s x;s gSA Jh vksadkj ey "kekZ }kjk lSfud cLrh esa Hkw[k.M vkaoVu gsrq fnukad 28-2- 07 dks vkosnu fd;k x;k Fkk] tks izFke jftLVj ds Øe la[;k 541 ij ntZ gSA pwafd iqjkuk jftLVj fujLr ugha fd;k x;k gS] blfy, iqjkus jftLVj ij izkIr izkFkZuk i= ds vk/kkj ij vkoaVu esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk fd;k tkuk izrhr ugha gqvk gSA
4. vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;k gS fd tks lSfud ;k deZpkjh ftl Js.kh dk Fkk] mlh ds vuq:i Hkw[k.M jkf"k fy;k tkuk izLrkfor FkkA jkf"k dk ysu&nsu Js.kh vuqlkj x.kuk dj dk;kZy; Lrj ij fy;k x;k (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (11 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] gSA ;fn fdlh vkoaVh ls jkf"k de yh xbZ gS] rks og vc Hkh olwy dh tk ldrh gSA
5. lSfud cLrh pw: esa Hkw[k.M vkoaVu dh izfØ;k dkQh le; iwoZ ls pyh vk jgh gSA iwoZ vkoaVu ds lEcU/k esa Hkh dksbZ vuqeksfnr izfØ;k] fu;e@funsZ"k ugha gksuk tk;k x;k gSA jkT; ljdkj }kjk tkjh vkns"k Øekad 64 fnukad 06-11-65 esa of.kZrkuqlkj jkT; ljdkj }kjk QkSft;ksa o jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dks edku cukus gsrq Hkwfe vkcknh esa cnyus dh Lohd`fr iznku dh xbZ gSA vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;k gS fd lSfud cLrh ds iwoZ insu v/;{kksa }kjk o'kZ 1995 esa ,sls O;fDr;ksa dks ftUgksaus "kgj lkSUn;Zdj.k ,oa jkLrk pkSM+k djus ds fy, LoSPNk ls viuh nqdku] edku ,oa cjkenk fn;s rFkk bl dk;Z gsrq ftu yksxksa us le>kbZ"k dh ,sls 10 O;fDr;ksa dks lSfud cLrh esa fj;k;rh nj ij Hkw[k.M vkoafVr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA blh izdkj vLirky] Ldwy] Vkmu gkWy] O;k;ke "kkyk] vksiu fFk;sVj fuekZ.k djokus okys O;fDr;ksa dks lSfud cLrh esa fu"kqYd Hkwfe fn;s tkus rFkk lSfud cLrh gsrq fctyh] c<bZ] yqgkj] nthZ] eksph] /kksch vkfn dk;Z djus okys nks&nks O;fDr;ksa dks Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; 1996 dh cSBd esa fy;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA bl izdkj lSfud cLrh] pw: esa fu/kkZfjr ik=rk j[kus okys O;fDr;ksa ;k lSfudksa dks gh Hkw[k.M vkoafVr ugha fd;s x;s cfYd mijksDr O;fDr;ksa dks gh bl cLrh esa Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;s tkrs jgs gS blls Hkh lSfud cLrh pw: esa Hkw[k.M vkoaVu dk dksbZ fu/kkZfjr ekin.M vFkok ojh;rk dk izpyu iwoZ ls gh ugha gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA Jherh Qwydaoj ,oa lqjs"k daoj dks f}rh; fo"o;q) esa eSMy ls lEekfur fd;s tkus dk mYys[k lsuk }kjk iznRr lfoZl lfVZfQdsV esa fd;k x;k gS] ftldh izfr mudh vkoaVu i=koyh esa miyC/k gSA jkT; ljdkj ds Hkw&:ikUrj.k vkns"k Øekad 64 fn- 6-11-65 esa mDr Hkwfe QkSft;ksa o jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dks edku cukus gsrq vkcknh esa cnyus dh Lohd`fr iznku dh xbZ FkhA bl dkj.k vlSfud deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkw vkoaVu vfu;ferrk ugha gSA lSfud cLrh] pw: esa "ks'k jgs Hkw&[k.Mksa ds vkoaVu gsrq vkjksfir vf/kdkjh Jh vtqZu es?koky }kjk vius inLFkkiu ds nkSjku lSfud cLrh ds vkoklh; Hkw&[k.Mksa dk [email protected];d iz;kstukFkZ Hkwfe dk laifjorZu@ fu;fefrdj.k fu;e 2007 ds "kh'kZd ls fu;e cuk;s x;s FksA mDr fu;esa esa fuEu dk mYys[k lehphu gS%&
1. vkosnu ds lkFk jkT; ds fdlh Hkh {ks= esa iwoZ esa fj;k;rh nj ij vkoaVu u gksus dk "kiFk i= izLrqr djsxk rFkk iwoZ esa vkoklh; Hkw&[k.M u gksus laca/kh izek.k i= Hkh nsxkA
2. Hkw&vkoaVu laca/kh izkIr vkosnu i=kas dh vko";d tkap lacaf/kr iVokjh ls djok;s tkus ds i"pkr~ ntZ jftLVj dj lwpuk ls vkosnd dks voxr djok;k tkosxkA ntZ jftLVj dks lfefr dh cSBd esa fu.kZ; gsrq j[kk tkosxkA vkoaVu 75 izfr"kr lSfudksa ftlesa HkwriwoZ lSfud] lSfud fo/kokvksa] "kkS;Z izkIr lSfudksa] [ksydwn esa jkT; Lrjh;] jk'Vªh; Lrj ij fo"ks'k lEekfur dk jgsxk ,oa 25 izfr"kr jkT; deZpkfj;ksa] dsUnz ljdkj ds deZpkfj;ksa ,oa jkT; Lrj ij lEekfur ukxfjdksa dks (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (12 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] fd;k tkosxkA v/;{k }kjk fy;k x;k fu.kZ;] vfUre fu.kZ; gksxk vkfnA Jh vtqZujke es?koky] rRdk0 ftyk dysDVj ,oa insu v/;{k lSfud cLrh pw: us vuqla/kku ij vius Li'Vhdj.k esa crk;k gS fd lSfud cLrh] pw: esa Hkw[k.M vkoaVu izfØ;k dks O;ofLFkr rFkk ikjnf"kZrk ds iz;kl ds fy, ;g fu;e cuk;s FksA ;g fu;e jkT; ljdkj ls vuqeksfnr ugha Fks] blfy, budh dksbZ fof/kd ekU;rk ugha FkhA pw: "kgj ds lkSUn;Zdj.k ,oa jkLrk pkSM+k djus gsrq ftu yksxksa us vius edku] nqdku ;k cjkensa LoSPNk ls fn;s mu yksxksa dks Hkh lSfud cLrh esa fj;k;rh nj ij Hkw[k.M vkoaVu dk fu.kZ; o'kZ 1995 dh cSBd esa fy;k x;k gSA blh izdkj lSfud cLrh ds fuokfl;ksa dks nSfud mi;ksxh dk;ksZ tSls fctyh] c<bZ] yqgkj] nthZ] eksph] /kksch vkfn dk;ksaZ ds fy, nwj ugha tkuk iM+s] bl dkj.k mDr dk;Z djus okys nks&nks O;fDr;ksa dks mDr cLrh esa Hkw[k.M vkoaVu dk fu.kZ; o'kZ 1996 dh cSBd dk;Zokgh esa fy;k tkuk Hkh crk;kA Jh es?koky us vius Li'Vhdj.k esa ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd Hkw[k.M dh jkf"k Js.kh ,oa jsad ds vuqlkj fy;s tkus dk izko/kku gS rFkk jkf"k olwy djus dk dk;Z dk;kZy; Lrj ij gksrk gSA ;fn fdlh vkoaVh ls Hkw[k.M dh jkf"k de yh xbZ gS rks olwy dh tk ldrh gSA Jh es?koky us vius Li'Vhdj.k esa ;g Hkh crk;k fd lSfud cLrh esa Jh nqyhpan ,oa Jh gkde vyh dk vukf/kd`r dCtk FkkA bu dCtk /kkfj;ksa dks gVkus ds fy, esjs }kjk dk;Zokgh dh xbZ FkhA bu yksxksa us dCtk gVkus x;s O;fDr;ksa dks /kedk;k Hkh FkkA Jh gkde vyh dk lSfud cLrh esa ,d edku gSA mlds ikl dh [kkapk Hkwfe ij mlds }kjk dCtk fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ml dCts gsrq eq>s vkosnu Hkh fd;k x;k Fkk ysfdu esjs }kjk Jh gkde vyh dk vkosnu vLohdkj djrs gq;s og Hkwfe Mk- ,Q-,p- xkSjh dks vkoafVr dh xbZ FkhA blh ckr ls ukjkt gksdj ;s yksx >wBh f"kdk;rsa dj jgs gSA ftyk dysDVj us esjs dk;Zdky ds nkSjku fd;s x;s vkoaVu ds laca/k esa laHkkxh; vk;qDr chdkusj dks tkap fjiksVZ is"k dh FkhA o'kZ 1995] 1996 dh cSBd dk;Zokfg;ksa esa vlSfudksa vkfn dks Hkw&[k.M vkoaVu ds fooj.k rFkk Jh gkde vyh }kjk dCtk"kqnk Hkwfe ds vkoaVu gsrq vkowsnu i= vkfn ls Jh es?koky ds Li'Vhdj.k dh iqf'V gksrh gSA vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;k gS fd pw: ftyk esa QkSft;ksa o jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dks edku cukus gsrq jktLFkku ljdkj ds vkns"k Øekad ,Q-2¼228½jkt-@[k@64 fnukad 6-11-65 ls rglhy pw: ds fofHkUu [kljksa dh Hkwfe dqy {ks=Qy 306 ch?kk 14 fcLok Hkwfe vkcknh esa cnyh xbZA rRi"pkr~ jkT; ljdkj }kjk vkns"k Øekad ,Q- 2¼229½jkt-@[k@67@ lhvkj&vAA fnukad 9-5-73 ls ftyk dysDVj] pw: dks Lo;a ds funZsa"kksa ij mDr Hkwfe ij lSfud cLrh clkus gsrq funsZf"kr fd;k x;kA jkT; ljdkj }kjk :ikUrfjr bl Hkwfe ij fofHkUu {ks=Qyksa ds ,d gtkj ls vf/kd Hkw&[k.M FksA vkyksP; vof/k ls iwoZ inLFkkfir jgs ftyk dysDVjksa }kjk mDr Hkw&[k.Mksa esa ls dkQh Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;s tk pqds FksA iwoZ esa vkoafVr Hkw&[k.Mksa ds vkoaVu ds laca/ k esa ik=rk@ojh;rk vkfn fu/kkZj.k dk vk/kkj] vkosnu fujLr dh lwpuk] lSfud ,oa vlSfud Js.kh dk vuqikfrd vkoaVu gsrq fdlh izdkj ds vuqeksfnr fu;e@funsZ"k vFkok izfØ;k izpyu esa ugha gksuk ik;k x;k gSA lSfud cLrh] pw: esa Hkw[k.M vkoaVu gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk mYysf[kr vkns"kksa ls ftyk dysDVj dks lEiw.kZ "kfDr;ka (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (13 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] iznku djrs gq;s Hkwfe vkoaVu dk vf/kdkj fn;k x;k FkkA iwoZ esa Hkh ftyk dysDVjksa }kjk jkT; ljdkj }kjk iznRr bl foosdkf/kdkj ls Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA vuqla/kku ls lSfud cLrh] pw: ds laca/k esa vfUre fu.kZ; ysus ds fy, ftyk dysDVj insu v/;{k dks vf/kd`r gksuk ik;k x;k gSA lSfud cLrh pw: ds laca/k esa le;≤ ij gksus okyh cSBd dk;Zokfg;ksa esa iwoZ fu.kZ;ksa dh leh{kk djrs gq;s mudks cnyk tkuk Hkh vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;k gSA vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk fn0 21-8-08 dh cSBd esa yksfg;k dkWyst ls 75]000 :- m/kkj dh jkf"k olwy djus ds fu.kZ; dks i"pkorhZ cSBd dk;Zokgh fnukad 15-12-09 esa ftyk dysDVj ,oa insu v/;{k Jh ds0ds0 ikBd }kjk mDr jkf"k dks nku ekurs gq;s olwy ugha djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA blh izdkj Jh ekgu yky "kekZ lsokfuo`Rr dk;kZy; lgk;d dks fnukad 22-6-07 dh cSBd dk;Zokgh esa Hkw[k.M vkoaVu ds fu.kZ; dks Hkh cny fnukad 15-12- 09 dh cSBd dk;Zokgh esa Hkw[k.M fujLr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA Hkw&[k.M vkoaVu esa izkjEHk ls gh vuqeksfnr funsaZ"k vFkok fu;e ugha gksuk ik;k x;k gSA iwoZ v/;{kksa }kjk bl cLrh esa lSfud vFkok jkT; deZpkjh ugha gksus] pw: ftys ls ckgj ds fuoklh gksus rFkk iwoZ esa vU;= Hkw[k.M gksus okys O;fDr;ksa dks Hkh iwoZ v/;{kksa }kjk bl cLrh esa Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;s x;s gSA vuqla/kku ls ;g Hkh ik;k x;k gS fd vkoaVu lfefr dh vk;ksftr cSBd vFkok cSBd vk;kstu ds lEcU/k esa fdlh izdkj dk fefVax jftLVj] fefVx ,tsUMk la/kkfjr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vkoaVu lfefr dh cSBd vkgqr gksus ds mijkUr lh/ks gh cSBd dk;Zokgh dk uksV tkjh gksuk ik;k x;k gSA vuqla/kku ds nkSjku iz"uxr Hkw[k.M vkoaVu ls iwoZ vkoafVr Hkw[k.Mksa dh dfri; i=kofy;ksa dk voyksdu dj] Nk;k izfr izkIr dh xbZA mDr i=kofy;ksa ds voyksdu ls Hkh iwoZ ds Hkw[k.M vkoaVu dh dksbZ fuf"pr izfØ;k izdV ugha gksrh gSA vlQy vkosndksa dks muds vkosnu fujLr dj lwfpr djus dh izfØ;k Hkh izpyu esa ugha gksuk ik;k x;k gSA vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;k gS fd lSfud cLrh pw: gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk vkcknh Hkwfe :ikUrj.k vkns"k ,oa i"pkrorhZ vkns"k esa ftyk dysDVj dks Lo;a ds funsZ"kksa ij cLrh clkus gsrq funsZf"kr fd;k x;k gSA bl Hkwfe ds vkoaVu gsrq ik=rk@ojh;rk] vkoaVu "kqYd vkfn ds laca/k esa dksbZ fu;e@funsZ"k izlkfjr ugha fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA lSfud cLrh esa iwoZ v/;{kksa }kjk Lo foosd ls lHkh rjg ds O;fDr;ksa dks Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA vkjksfir ftyk dysDVj Jh vtqZu es?koky }kjk cuk;s x;s mDr dfFkr fu;e 2007 l{ke izkf/kdkjh ¼jkT; ljdkj½ Lrj ij vuqeksfnr ugha gSA vr% bu fu;eksa dh vogsyuk dks] fof/k dk mYy?kau vFkok vfu;ferrk ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA mDr Hkw&[k.Mksa ds vkoaVu esa Jh vtqZu es?koky ,oa vU; vkjksihx.k }kjk in dk nq:i;ksx dj vU;Fkk ykHk izkIr djuk Hkh ughas ik;k x;k gSA lexz vuqla/kku ls vkjksfirx.kksa ds fo:) /kkjk 13 ¼1½ Mh] 13¼2½ ihlh ,DV 420] 120ch] Hkk0n0la0 dk vijk/k izekf.kr ugha ik;k x;k gSA vr% izdj.k esa iwoZ vuqla/kku ,oa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns"k ls fd;s x;s iqu% vuqla/kku ls izdV gq;s rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij] izdj.k esa vfUre izfrosnu ¼rF; dh Hkwy esa½ fn;s tkus gsrq iwoZ vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk vuq"ka'kk dh xbZ FkhA"(Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:42365] (14 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014]
25. After going through the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 and perusing the contents of the first and the second final reports it is apparent that point No. 1 formulated by the learned trial Judge has already been investigated and police concluded that the said registers were being properly maintained having entries of all the application forms since 1986 and the second register was opened as the first register has become a rag. Similarly for point No.4 the investigation has already been conducted and it is specifically stated in the report as under:-
"vkjksfir vf/kdjh Jh vtqZu es?koky }kjk] "ks'k jgs Hkw&[k.Mksa ds vkoaVu ds laca/k esa ,d Nkuchu lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k FkkA mDr Nkuchu lfefr dh fnukad 20-08-08 dks ,d cSBd gqbZ ftlesa lfefr ds lnL;ksa }kjk vU; izLrkoksa ds lkFk ^^ftys ls ckgj ds** vkosndksa ij fopkj ugha fd;s tkus ds izLrko dk mYys[k gSA fnukad 21-8-08 dks vkoaVu lfefr dh cSBd dk;Zokgh fooj.k ds fcUnq la- 6 esa Nkuchu lfefr ds mDr izLrko ds Øe esa pq: rglhy ls ckgj ds vkosndksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxk esa ^^pw: rglhy ds ckgj ds vkosndksa** dk mYys[k] Vad.k Hkwy gh gS D;ksafd Nkuchu lfefr dh cSBd dk;Zokgh fnukad 20-08-08 esa ^^ftys ds ckgj ds vkosndksa** dk gh mYys[k gS u fd pw: rglhy ls ckgj ds vkosndksa dkA ftu vkosndksa dks Hkw[k.M vkoafVr ugha fd;s x;s muds vkosnu i= fujLr djus ds laca/k esa vuqla/kku ls bl izfØ;k dk izpyu iwoZ ls gh ugha gksuk ik;k x;k gSA "
26. Similarly for point No.5 formulated by the learned trial Judge the investigation has already been conducted.
27. In the first investigation conducted by the ACB the investigating officer categorically reached to the conclusion that allottee Smt.Kadar Bano was residing at Churu and she produced her affidavit. Similarly Smt. Suresh Kanwar, Smt. Phul Kanwar, Captain Mukesh Panwar, Captain Navratna Singh, Smt. Jaitun Bano, Smt. Santosh Kanwar, Devendra Singh, Hameer Singh and Bhom Singh were also residing at Churu and they were allotted plots as per the guidelines framed by the Collector by the concerned committee.
(Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (15 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014]
28. In the first investigation report it is also pointed out that allottee Deelip Kumar, Girdhari Lal, Chaukh Ram, Kashi Ram, Sudhir Ranjan, Om Prakash & Chandra Bhan were also allotted plots and they were also residing in Churu. Thus, the first investigation report clearly indicates that regarding point No.5 detailed investigation was conducted. The learned trial Judge without minutely examining the first & second negative final reports directed the police to investigate the fact which were already investigated, thus such directions clearly fall within the precinct of re-investigation.
29. Similarly, the learned trial Judge framed point No.6, directing the police agency to investigate that how Dr. F.H. Gauri was allotted strip of plot? With regard to the said point in the first investigation report it has been specifically mentioned that Dr. F.H. Gauri was living for last 12 years in Churu and was State level awardee in the field of medicine. He filed an application before the Chief Minister for allotting the plot at concessional rate in the Sainik Basti.
30. It has been categorically pointed out by the investigating officer that allotment of plot was made to Dr. F.H. Gauri for his excellent services in the field of medicine. It is also stated in the second investigation report that in the year 1996 also Shri Chauth Mal, who was an Artisan & state awardee was also allotted plot in the Sainik Basti. It is also stated in the investigation report that prior to the alleged allotments such allotments were being made by the different Collectors in the Sainik Basti, Churu. It is clearly stated in the investigation report that in pursuant to State Govt. order No.64/ 06.11.65 the plots were allotted to the soldiers and (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (16 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] state government officers in the Sainik Basti. In the year 1995 the plots were allotted to ten persons. In the year 1996 plots were allotted to the persons belonging to other categories in the Sainik Basti.
31. In the first negative final report also, it has been clearly mentioned that for the allotment of the land no rules were framed and only guidelines for allotment were framed by the present petitioner. Therefore, in both the investigations conducted by the ACB, specific findings have been arrived and it was opined that allotment of the land to Dr. F.H. Gauri was made in accordance to the order issued in the year 1965.
32. The learned trial Judge did not consider the reports submitted by the first investigating officer as well as second investigating officer and in a cursory manner has framed the questions, whereas, the police has already conducted the investigation on the above points. Thus, it is obvious that the learned trial Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction and directed the police authority to again investigate the matter.
33. The learned trial Judge framed point No.10 as follows:-
"D;k lSfud cuke vlSfud vkoaVuks esa izfØ;kuqlkj 75 izfr"kr o 25 izfr"kr dk vuqikr j[kk x;k] D;ksafd 25 dh vkoaVu fyLV is"k gqbZ gS mlesa 15 lSfud Js.kh esa o 10 vlSfud Js.kh esa gS tks fd mDr vuqikr esa ugh gS o blds D;k dkj.k Fks \"
34. The first investigation conducted by the ACB clearly reveals that on this point also a detailed investigation was conducted and in the final report it has been specifically mentioned that Smt. Kadar Bano, Smt. Suresh Kanwar, Smt. Phul Kanwar, Smt. Jaitun Bano and Smt. Santosh Kanwar are widows of ex-soldiers and similarly Captain Mukesh Panwar, Havaldar Hameer Singh, Bhom (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (17 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] Singh and Captain Navratna Singh were ex-soldiers and residents of Churu District. It is also stated in the first negative final report that allotments to Shri Devendra Singh Jhajhadiya and Dr. F.H. Gauri were made from non military category. Devendra Singh Jhajhadiya was Arjun awardee. It has been further narrated in the first negative final report that out of 31 plots, 25 plots were allotted, out of which, 15 plots were allotted to soldiers and rest 10 plots to the government servants.
35. Despite the above specific finding, the learned trial Judge again directed the police to conduct the investigation. Certainly the action of the learned trial Judge is not in accordance with the settled principles of law and does not fall within the ambit of further investigation.
36. Learned trial Judge framed point No.3, that no such affidavits were taken from the allottees. The police after investigation concluded that affidavits were duly obtained from all the allottees before making the allotment of the plots. Thus, the learned trial Judge ignored the first investigation report and reiterated the directions, which have already been issued vide order dated 25.10.2013.
37. Similarly, learned trial Judge formulated point No.9 as under:-
"blds vfrfjDr ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- esa tks Hkh vk{ksi vtqZu es?koky o vU; ds fo:) vokaNuh; fØ;kdyki djus ds fy;s yxk;s x;s gSa mu ij Hkh vuqla/kku D;ksa ugha fd;k x;k \"
38. There was no specific allegation with regard to involvement of petitioner in undesirable activities. Such a vague allegation, without specifying the facts cannot be ascertained or investigated. (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (18 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014]
39. Therefore, after going through the entire material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge did not appraise the material available on record and without examining the conclusions of first and second negative final reports, passed a vague and cryptic order. The contents of the first & second negative final reports show that on most of the points, formulated by the learned trial Judge, specific findings & conclusions have already been arrived and police did not find any culpability of the present petitioner. The directions passed by the learned trial Judge do not fall within the ambit of further investigation & rather amounts to denovo investigation or re- investigation.
40. As far as quashing of FIR is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra) broadly laid down the following principles:-
"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;(Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:42365] (19 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014]
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
41. In the instant matter, the FIR was registered in the year 2010 and after its registration first negative final report was submitted in the year 2013. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of the trial court again investigation was carried out resulting in another (second) closure report and finally passing of the impugned order directing the investigation. The chequered history is suffice to demonstrate that the concerned trial Judge is competent to act upon the closure report and it is in the realm of it to consider whether to accept the closure report or to proceed.
42. In view of the above, the order impugned dated 08.07.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner is set aside and matter is remanded to the learned trial Judge for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The prayer for quashing the FIR is disallowed.
43. In view of the above discussion, the criminal misc. petition is partly allowed.
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4070/2019
1. This criminal misc. petition is preferred against the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Bikaner, whereby, the learned Judge took suo moto cognizance and directed the Anti Corruption Bureau Chowki Bikaner to proceed with the investigation, as the interim order (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:42365] (20 of 20) [CRLMP-1953/2014] dated 06.08.2014 granted by this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1953/2014 has not been extended by a speaking order.
2. The criminal misc. petition challenging the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner has been decided, therefore, this criminal misc. petition is rendered infructuous.
3. In view of the above, the criminal misc. petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J AK Chouhan/-
(Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:47:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)