Uttarakhand High Court
Santram vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 April, 2017
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 438 of 2017
Santram .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. B.D. Pandey, Advocate for
the petitioner
Mr. A.S. Gill, Dy. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Milind Raj, Brief Holder
for the State.
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record from the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sitarganj relating to declaration of land and quashing the impugned first information report dated 19.03.2017, lodged by the respondent no.3 as case crime no.118 of 2017 u/s 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(5) IPC of Police Station Sitarganj, District U.S. Nagar.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the impugned first information report dated 19.03.2017, lodged by the respondent no.3 as case crime no.118 of 2017 u/s 218, 420, 467, 468, 477(5) IPC of Police Station Sitarganj, District U.S. Nagar.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
On 19.03.2017, an F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Vinod Kumar, S.D.M., Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar against the petitioner alleging therein that on 2 16.03.2017 a meeting was convened under the chairmanship of Commissioner, Kumaun Division in the Collectorate Office regarding irregularity committed in disbursement of compensation in respect of National Highway no.74 and 125. It is alleged that in the meeting the petitioner was also directed to appear along with entire records of the case. During inquiry, the misalband register of 2011-12 was summoned through special messenger. When the misalband register of 2011-12 was produced before the inquiry officer, it was found that by manipulating page nos.25, 42, 61, 64, 72, 73, 74, 77 of the misalband register, the bottom part of the said register has been torned. It is further alleged that on 17.03.2017 when he (complainant-S.D.M. Sitarganj) sought explanation from the petitioner regarding tearing of pages, he admitted the same to have done by him. Petitioner also stated that he is working as Revenue Ahalmad in the office of District Magistrate, Sitarganj from March, 2015 and in April 2016, he was pressurised to make back date declaration of agricultural land to non-
agricultural land.
3. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner being Revenue Ahalmand had no role to play in declaration of agricultural land to non-agricultural land. He was under obligation to make entry by the order of competent authority in the files regarding the same. The petitioner was neither the beneficiary nor had any reason to manipulate or tear the document. It is also the submission that the higher authorities of the petitioner are involved in the embezzlement of 3 crores of rupees by declaring the agricultural land to non-agricultural land on back dates. After inquiry, six superior officers of the petitioner, prima facie have been found guilty and have been put under suspension. It is alleged that these officials of the petitioner compelled the petitioner to give an affidavit, admitting an act of guilt which he has in fact not done, under the threat of suspension and removal from service.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Specific allegations have been made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., which discloses the commission of offence. Same are very serious in nature. In the opinion of the Court, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the Investigating Officer to either file the charge sheet or final report in the matter, after investigation.
5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders, his bail application shall be heard and decided, expeditiously. [Stay application CLMA No. 3119 of 2017 also stands dismissed].
(V.K. Bist, J.) 05.04.2017 Rajni