Dinesh Pratap Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 October, 2017

[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Dinesh Pratap Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 October, 2017

Heard Mr Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate and Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned First Information Report No.032 dated 10.03.2017 under Sections 167, 218, 219, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B & 34 of I.P.C. registered at ROP SIDCUL, P.S. Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. Further prayer has been made in the writ petition for direction to respondent no.2 not to arrest and not to harass the petitioner in pursuance of First Information Report No.032 dated 10.03.2017 under Sections 167, 218, 219, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B & 34 of I.P.C. registered at ROP SIDCUL, P.S. Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. Initially, the matter was heard on 13.10.2017 and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following order was passed:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Admit.

Issue notice to respondent no.3 returnable at any early date, by registered post, acknowledgment due.

List this matter after three weeks alongwith WPCRL No. 806 of 2017. By that time, counter affidavit(s) may be filed.

Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers available on record, it is directed that, till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with F.I.R No. 032 dated 10.03.2017, relating to offences punishable under Section 167, 218, 219, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B & 34 I.P.C., registered at R.O.P. SIIDCUL, P.S. Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, provided he cooperates with the investigating agency in the investigation of the case.

Stay application (CLMA No.13128 of 2017) stands disposed of.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself."

4. Stay vacation application has been filed by the State. Alongwith the stay vacation application an affidavit has been filed by the Investigating Officer. Objection/affidavit to the affidavit filed in support of the stay vacation application has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where action is being taken at the behest of then Commissioner, Kumaon, who was personally biased against the petitioner. He submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR. He submitted that certain facts will make it clear that petitioner is not at all involved in the offence alleged. At the time of initiation of land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner was not Special Land Acquisition Officer but subsequently at the time of 3 determination of compensation, he was posted as Special Land Acquisition Officer. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred Sections 51, 60 and 61 of the Right to Fare Compensation Act 2013 and submitted that whatever was done by the petitioner in the capacity of Special Land Acquisition Officer, same was done in exercise of his judicial power and no action can be taken against him for exercising his judicial power. Therefore, in pursuance to the FIR, he cannot be held responsible for exercising his judicial power. He further submitted that, infact, for the purpose of construction of road, the land of various tenure holders was acquired. The Sub Divisional Magistrate/Tehsildar of the area passed order under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act by declaring the said land as non-agricultural land. They exercised their power as Assistant Collector, 1st Class. Petitioner had nothing to do with declaration of land as non-agricultural land. He submitted that the petitioner determined the compensation at circle rate and, therefore, it cannot be said that he awarded compensation at exorbitantly higher rate. He further submitted that in arbitration proceedings, the compensation was further enhanced in some matters. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the entire exercise is malafide. He submitted that on 07.03.2017 a meeting was held in the office of the Chief Secretary of the State and in that meeting a committee was constituted for identifying the culprits. He submitted that before the committee could meet, the Commissioner, Kumaon lodged the FIR by exercising his power malafidely. He submitted that these facts are sufficient to show the malafide action and petitioner is entitled for grant of relief. This Court asked the Senior Counsel about the grounds on which the FIR can be quashed, the learned Senior Counsel fairly submitted that though in such matter FIR cannot be quashed but it is a 4 case where interim protection must be granted to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. He submitted that petitioner is Senior PCS Officer and is cooperating and will fully cooperate with the investigating agency.

6. The writ petition as well as the extension of interim order has vehemently been opposed by Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate. He submitted that FIR can only be quashed where no offence is found to be made out. But it is a case where embezzlement is found. He referred paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of stay vacation application and submitted that writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 of the affidavit are referred hereunder:-

"3. The deponent most respectfully state that in the instant case a committee was constituted by the State Government to look into the illegalities in the determination of compensation due to declaration of agricultural land as non-agricultural land whereby approximately 100 crores of rupees loss was caused to the State exchequer and accordingly the Commissioner, Kumaon Division had directed the respondent no.3 to lodge FIR against unknown persons involved in the case at hand pursuant to which on 10.03.2017 FIR was got lodged against unknown persons which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

4. That it is respectfully submitted that during the investigation the investigating team had unearthed a scam in the construction of National Highway wherein a huge loss was caused to the State exchequer by the petitioner and other co- accused persons and during investigation it was further revealed that the present accused was the main accused in the case and he was directly involved in commission of crime at hand.

5. It is further stated in the affidavit that during investigation it was also revealed that hundred official files relating to National Highway and 143 proceedings under U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act were either destroyed or were found missing in order to destroy the evidence against the accused persons involved in the incident. It was further revealed that the present petitioner being the main accused might have been involved in destroying missing of files. It is further stated that the present petitioner appointed as Special Land Acquisition Officer was directly involved in the scam and he was continuously influencing the witnesses in order to destroy the evidence".

7. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate submitted that judicial act of the petitioner is not part of investigation. Only other activities, which are regarding embezzlement etc. are subject matter of investigation. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that after grant of interim protection to the petitioner, the petitioner is threatening the witnesses. He submitted that the statements of those witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C which are against the petitioner. He submitted that in case, interim protection is continued, the petitioner will misuse the same. To this, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that these allegations are totally false as petitioner is a responsible officer and he has never threatened the witnesses.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal. Vs. Swapna Kumar, 1982 (1) SCC 561, has held that if an offence is disclosed, Court will not normally interfere with the investigation into the case, and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the 6 Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.

9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. and also perused the affidavits of the parties. In my opinion it is not a fit case where this Court should interfere under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter thoroughly and reach to a particular conclusion. After investigation, Investigating Officer may file final report in favour of petitioner or charge sheet against him. The grounds mentioned in the writ petition are not sufficient to quash the F.I.R. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 13.10.2017 stands vacated. (Stay vacation application stands disposed of.) (V.K.Bist, J.) 28.10.2017 Arti

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court