Jagdish Rai Sharma vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a Crl. Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Shri Jagdish Rai Sharma, Tehsildar (Sales) Rehabilitation Department, Haryana whereby he has sought the quashing of FIR No. 244 dated 7.12.1995 under Sections 418/420 I.P.C. registered against him at PS Radaur, Yamuna Nagar.

Facts which are necessary to understand the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 244 (ibid) may be noticed.

Suresh Kumar s/o Jai Parkash was purchaser of the evacuee land bearing Khasra Nos. 1543 to 1546 in all measuring 7 marlas for a sale consideration of Rs. 12,000/ and he was purchaser of Khasra No. 1553 to 1554 measuring in all 4 marlas for a sale consideration of Rs. 7600/ at an auction sale held on 22.12.1989. He deposited Rs. 3,000/ and Rs. 1900/ at the spot with the fall of hammer i.e. 1/4th of the total sale consideration. Amount was deposited in the office of the Custodian. Despite applications having been made by him to Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar and other officers that the land purchased by him in the auction sale in the year 1989 be transferred in his name and that he was ready to pay the remaining sale consideration in one lump, the same was not transferred in his name.

Land was sold by Tehsildar (Sales), Kaithal in his favour as the same was in the sale unit Kaithal in the year 1989. The auction was subject to approval by the competent authority i.e. Settlement Officer (Sales). Settlement Officer (Sales) did not approve the auction and ordered vide order dated 16.4.90 that the land be put to reauction. In the wake of the creation of Yamuna Nagar and Kaithal as independent districts, the land situated in Radaur fell in the sale unit Ambala. Auction of the aforesaid evacuee land was to take place on 5.10.1995 in the premises of Sub Tehsil Radaur. According to Suresh Kumar s/o Jai Parkash, petitioner Shri Jagdish Rai Sharma came from Ambala in the car of land grabbers. He did not hold auction proceedings in the premises of Sub Tehsil Radaur. Instead he sat in the house of somebody and prepared the bid sheet and the presence sheet. Bid sheet prepared by him was fabrication. Presence sheet prepared by him was a fabrication. He did not hold the auction proceedings in open. In fact he did not hold the auction proceedings at all and fabricated the bid sheet and the presence sheet. According to Suresh Kumar, the auction held on 5.10.1995 was required to be cancelled as it was no auction in the eye of law, and the land was required to be put to an auction again openly. On the complaint of Suresh Kumar, the inquiry was held by SDO(C), Jagadhari. On 19.10.1995, SDO(C) visited Radaur and examined S/Shri Suresh Kumar, Jagdish Parsad, Ashok Kumar and Subash Chand residents of Radaur. They supported the version of the complaint. Naib Tehsildar, Radaur also made a report that no such auction had been conducted by Tehsildar (Sales) in the premises of Sub Tehsil, Radaur on 5.10.1995, with regard to the said evacuee land situated at Radaur.

Petitioner (Jagdish Rai Sharma) did not appear before the SDO(C), Jagadhri in the inquiry. Instead he sent a letter through some employee of his office mentioning therein that the auction held on 22.12.1989 by Tehsildar (Sales), Kaithal had been cancelled by Additional Settlement Officer, Ambala vide order dated 10.11.1990 and he had ordered the reauction of the land and that he reauctioned the evacuee land at Radaur on 5.10.1995 and the Settlement Officer (Sales), Ambala did not confirm the auction held by him as the auction had fetched even below the reserved price and that land would be put to re auction. SDO (C), Jagadhri in his repot found that the petitioner did not conduct the auction in the premises of Sub Tehsil Radaur. It was found that he had given no prior notice to the intending purchaser viz. Suresh Kumar etc. who had purchased the land in open auction in the year 1989 and had deposited the 1/4th auction money so that they could participate in the auction on 5.10.1995. On the basis of the report of SDO(C), Jagadhri, case FIR No. 244 was registered at PS Radaur on 7.12.1995 under Sections 418/420 IPC against Shri Jagdish Rai Sharma.

Petitioner Shri Jagdish Rai Sharma seeks the quashing of this FIR on the averments that the land situated in Radaur fell in the sale unit Ambala and he advertised the land for auction for 5.10.1995 in ''Dainik Tribune'' dated 2.10.1995. In addition he got the factum of auction proclaimed through other modes of proclamation in the vicinity where the property is situated and there was proclamation that auction would be held in the premises of Sub Tehsil, Radaur. Auction was held on 5.10.1995 in the premises of Sub Tehsil, Radaur. Highest bid was of Rs. 13,500/ while the reserve price was Rs. 27,000/. Vide report dated 25.10.1995, he recommended that the highest bid be not accepted as the highest bid was even below the reserve price and that land be put to reauction. Settlement Officer (Sales) vide order dated 27.10.1995 ordered that the land be reauctioned. Annexure P1 is the report given by him to the Settlement Officer (Sales). On report Annexure P1, the Settlement Officer (Sales) passed order, "The above said land be reauctioned." It was averred by the petitioner that the bid sheet was genuine and the presence sheet was also genuine and no case under Section 418/420 IPC was made out against him. No wrongful loss was caused by him to the State.

Through the return filed by the State of Haryana, these averments were assailed. It was urged that as a matter of fact no auction took place on 5.10.1995 in the premises of Sub Tehsil, Radaur. In the ''Dainik Tribune'' dated 2.10.1995, the advertisement appeared that the evacuee land would be auctioned on 5.10.1995 in the premises of Sub Tehsil Radaur. Petitioner in connivance with some people prepared a false record showing the auction on 5.10.1995. He showed fictitious auction at lesser rate than the reserve price fixed by the Department. He neither summoned Suresh Kumar etc. who had purchased the land in auction in the year 1989 nor auction was held at the place where advertisement was made. He did not give the report to his superior officers the same day. Additional Settlement Officer (Sales) passed the order to reauction the land because it was auctioned at a price lesser than the reserve price. JUDGMENT was passed on 27.10.1995. Petitioner issued Annexure P1 on 25.10.1995 when he had come to know that complaints had been filed against him regarding the preparation of forged records by him. Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar entrusted the enquiry to SDO(C), Yamuna Nagar, SDO(C) gave report on 2.11.1995 after enquiring the matter. SDO(C) Yamuna Nagar found that no auction had, in fact, been held on 5.10.1995 and it was all fictitious. He prepared false and forged record in the capacity of Government servant. He had cheated the public at large whom he had not given opportunity for participation in the auction. Investigation is almost complete. Sanction had been obtained for his prosecution from the Govt. as envisaged by Section 197 Cr.P.C. If there is no case against him, he will be discharged by the Court. If there is lack of evidence, he will be acquitted by the court.

From the recitation of the facts it emerges that no case for quashing of FIR 244 (ibid) registered against the petitioner is made out. According to the State of Haryana, auction was never held on 5.10.1995 by the petitioner in the premises of SubTehsil, Radaur. Petitioner prepared false record showing auction to have been held. According to the State of Haryana, if the petitioner had really held auction in the premises of SubTehsil, Radaur on 5.10.1995 and the highest bid was for Rs. 13,500/ while reserve price was Rs. 27,000/, he would have sent report to the Settlement Officer (Sales), Ambala forthwith recommending the reauction of the land. According to the State of Haryana, since there was something black at the bottom, the petitioner sent report Annexure P1 to Settlement Officer (Sales) on 25.10.1995. Allegation against the petitioner is that he prepared a false and forged record with the intention to cheat the public at large. It is not a case which should be thrown at the outset.

It is true that in the exercise of powers vesting in this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this court can quash criminal prosecution at the threshold but this power is to be used in the rarest of rare cases. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) Recent Criminal Reports 383 : AIR 1992 S.C. 604, the Hon''ble Supreme Court had enumerated certain categories of cases in which this court may exercise its powers under Article 226 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal prosecution. This court may quash criminal prosecution in the following cases :

"1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report of the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their enteriety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

Where the allegations in the FIR 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.

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.

Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

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.

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.

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 due to private and personal grudge."

Instant is not the rarest of rare cases where this court should exercise the discretion vesting in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Instant case does not fall within any of the aforesaid categories so that this criminal prosecution could be quashed at the very outset.

If on investigation of the allegations made in the FIR, no case is made out, the Magistrate will not frame a charge. After appearance before the Magistrate, the petitioner can plead that no case is made out against him and he be discharged.

If this criminal prosecution is quashed, that will scuttle the process of the court at the very outset and will erode the faith of the common man in the criminal administration of justice by our courts. There will be no injustice to the petitioner if he appears before the Magistrate and pleads that no case is made out against him and he be discharged. There will be injustice to the State of Haryana/Suresh Kumar if the criminal prosecution is scuttled at the outset and the petitioner is given a clean chit.

For the reasons given above, this criminal miscellaneous petition fails and is dismissed.