Om Prakash vs State of Uttaranchal

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 CrPC, the applicant has prayed to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2356/2006, State v. Om Prakash & Others, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur. On the basis of the First Information Report dated 18.4.2006, lodged by Tehsildar, Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar against the applicant Om Prakash and 5 others, the investigation was initiated which resulted in the submission of the chargesheet u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 166, 167 read with Section 120B IPC.

The controversy qua this petition is a piece of land ad measuring 17 bigha 12 biswa (1.113 hectare) situated in village Rammpura, Pargana Rudrapur, Tehsil Kiccha, bearing Khet No. 49 (49/2), Khata No. 65, which is bhumidhari in nature. The said land was purchased on 27.10.1980 by Om Prakash, the applicant petitioner, from one Sri Hakam Ram. On 13.4.2006, the petitioner executed the sale deed of the same land in favour of Prem Lal, S/o Bhagwan Das, Managing Director, UT Builders & Promoters Limited, Sector 34A, Chandigarh. It is pertinent to mention that the vendee disclosed his local address as village Jakarpur, Tehsil Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar at the time of purchasing this land on 13.4.2006. The land was purchased by Prem Lal for a consideration of rupees thirty lakhs and, accordingly, stamp duty, as per rules, to the tune of rupees three lakhs was paid by him to the Government.

At some point of time, it was revealed that the nature of the land, in question, was deliberately shown to be agricultural one just for the purpose of evading the requisite stamp duty, while as per the Government Order issued on 30.10.2005, the nature of the said land was industrial one. Therefore, an FIR was lodged on 18.4.2006 against the applicant petitioner Om Prakash (vendor of the land), Prem Lal Midda (vendee of the land), Satish Kumar and Satish Chhabra (witnesses of the deal), Vinod Kumar (Lekhpal/Patwari of the circle) and R.S. Surya (officiating Sub-Registrar, Kiccha). After investigation, the chargesheet was submitted only against the petitioner Om Prakash, the vendee Prem Lal Midda and Patwari Vinod Kumar. The Investigation Officer absolved the officiating Sub-Registrar and the two witnesses as well. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. So, the applicant has challenged the entire proceedings of the said criminal case based upon this chargesheet and has prayed to quash the same.

It has been contended on behalf of the learned Counsel for the applicant petitioner that Om Prakash (applicant petitioner) was only a vendee simplicitor, and if any act of swindling of stamp duty has been committed, the blame can be attached only to the vendee Prem Lal Midda, who might have committed the same in connivance with the Patwari concerned. He further contended that the matter of evasion of stamp duty, which was later assessed along with penalty to the tune of rupees one crore twenty two lakhs, was agitated before the competent authority/Additional District Magistrate, who after hearing the matter reduced the same to the tune of rupees ninety lakhs twenty eight thousand, and the same was also deposited by Prem Lal Midda, as is divulged from Annexure 2, filed with the rejoinder affidavit.

The contention put forth by the learned Counsel is not acceptable because the vendor Om Prakash cannot instigate the vendee to purchase his land on a throwaway price of rupees thirty lakhs only notwithstanding having knowledge of the fact that the nature of the land, in question, was industrial one. He was the owner of the land and was in possession of the same, and by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that he was unaware about the shooting very dear prices of his land, situated adjacent to the highway, much less its nature as industrial one declared by the Government. So, his complicity along with the Patwari, in question, cannot be ward off by a mere submission of being a simple vendor. He appears to be hand in gloves with the Patwari concerned and the vendee Prem Lal Midda to attain his nefarious tax evading interest which was behind the curtain.

It has been contended that the Investigation Officer has exonerated the Sub-Registrar and the witnesses and, therefore, the applicant should also have been absolved. This contention is wholly untenable. Needless to say that if the involvement of the said Patwari and witnesses is noticed in the evidence by the Trial Judge, then u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance can be taken against the accused persons, whose names have been scrapped by the Investigation Officer. It can also be observed that complicity of at least witnesses of the deed in the crime is not visible. So, the Investigation Officer has done nothing wrong in not implicating them.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is liable to be dismissed and, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order dated 14.12.2006 is hereby vacated, and the court below is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously as the same has already been delayed.

Registry to inform the court concerned accordingly.