Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 597 (PNJ)

Mahender Singh Kadian v. State Of Haryana

2002-05-28

M.L.SINGHAL

body2002
Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. Through this Criminal Misc. petitioner Mahinder Singh Kadian has prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to him in case F.I.R. No. 159 dated 18.3.2002 under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act) registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak against him. 2. In the month of July, 2001, ban had been imposed over registration of sale deeds of outer colonies at Rohtak. Pawan Kumar who is the author of this F.I.R. has been dealing in the sale and purchase of properties at Rohtak since long. He wanted the said ban on registration of sale deeds lifted. He wanted somebody who could assure him that he would manage the lifting of ban on registration of sale deeds of outer colonies. He inquired Shri Mahender Singh Kadian who was posted as Tehsildar at Rohtak during those days and he assured him that he would manage the lifting of ban on registration of the sale deeds of outer colonies after having a talk with high ups from outside Rohtak. Shri Mahender Sigh Kadian, Tehsildar demanded a sum of Rs. 15 lacs for this job. According to Pawan Kumar, he and some other property dealers collected Rs. 15 lacs and 31.7.2001 at 5.30 p.m. he handed over the amount to Shri Mahender Sigh Kadian, Tehsildar Rohtak at his residence camp office in the presence of Chander Bhan Subedar. Shri Mahender Singh Kadian assured him (Pawan Kumar) that he will get the work of registration of outer colonies resumed. Lifting of the ban on registration of sale deeds of outer colonies could not be managed by Mahender Singh Kadian. All the property dealers pressurised him that either he should return the money or manage the lifting the ban on the registration of sale deeds of outer colonies and the work of registration required. Pawan Kumar talked with Mahender Singh Kadian, Tehsildar Rohtak several times. Initially, he used to evade the issue. Later on, he started extending him threats. He started saying that if he demanded money, he would find himself himself in a situation that he would remember a lesson of his life. He threatened him to implicate him in false case. Pawan Kumar talked with Mahender Singh Kadian, Tehsildar Rohtak several times. Initially, he used to evade the issue. Later on, he started extending him threats. He started saying that if he demanded money, he would find himself himself in a situation that he would remember a lesson of his life. He threatened him to implicate him in false case. Similar threat was extended to Pawan Kumar by Smt. Kanta Alaria who is the leader of Smajwadi Party and is very close to Mahender Singh Kadian, Tehsildar on his mobile phone No. 98120 68868 and 98120 26540 and the least threat was given to him through Mobile phone on 20.10.2001. According to Pawan Kumar, on 21.10.2001 at 5.50 p.m. Smt. Kanta Alaria on the instructions of Mahender Singh Kadian, Tehsildar got a case F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001 registered under Sections 354, 506, 116/34 Indian Penal Code (Pawan Kumar) against him at the Police Station. In the F.I.R. No. 724 it was got recorded that a sum of Rs. 10 lacs was paid by him (Pawan Kumar) to the Deputy Commissioner Shri Anil Malik which was a false allegation. According to Pawan Kumar, he never met Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak nor he made any payment. According to Pawan Kumar, F.I.R. No. 724 ibid was manipulated by Mahender Singh Kadian who acted in concert with Smt. Kanta Alaria with whom he was very thick to malign Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. 3. It was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this case is the outcome of the annoyance of Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak which he incurred on account of F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001 got registered by Kanta Alaria against Pawan Kumar etc. It was submitted that it was pointed to the Deputy Commissioner, Shri Anil Malik that Smt. Kanta Alaria was close to the petitioners family and it was due to her closeness to the petitioners family that his name figured in F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001 to embarass the Deputy Commissioner. It was submitted that the petitioner was called by Shri Anil Malik to persuade Smt. Kanta Alaria to withdraw the F.I.R. but the petitioner failed to get the F.I.R. withdrawn. It was submitted that the petitioner was called by Shri Anil Malik to persuade Smt. Kanta Alaria to withdraw the F.I.R. but the petitioner failed to get the F.I.R. withdrawn. It was submitted that thereupon Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner called the three accused of F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001 including Pawan Kumar so that F.I.R. No. 724 could be got cancelled and the petitioner taught a lesson. With that object in mind, Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner took affidavits from Pawan Kumar, Chander Bhan and Rajinder Parshad. In para No. 9 of the F.I.R., it was got mentioned that "Pawan Kumar had handed over Rs. 10 lacs to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak which is totally false. Neither, I met the Deputy Commissioner nor did I gave any money to him. The entire story is the product of the mind of Mahender Singh Kadian, Tehsildar, Rohtak". It was submitted that this para was got recorded in the affidavit of Pawan Kumar with a view to neutralise this allegation in the F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Kanta Alaria that when Rajinder Sharma contacted her, he told her that property dealers have paid Rs. 10 lacs in bribe to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. It was submitted that their affidavits were got attested on 26.10.2001 which was a holiday, it being Dushera from Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. These were identified by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohtak and again attested by District Revenue Officer, Rohtak. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001 was investigated by Shri Sultan Singh, DSP, Headquarter. On investigation, he dropped Section 354 and added Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) but after the three accused of F.I.R. No. 724 gave affidavits against the petitioner, Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner got Baljit Singh SI, Incharge of Police Post, City Rohtak transferred to Police Lines, Rohtak and DSP Sultan Singh to Madhuban and he got the investigation of FIR No. 724 transferred to Shri Rajinder Singh DSP, Meham. It was submitted that DSP Rajinder Singh had no authority/jurisdiction over Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak. Investigation of case F.I.R. No. 724 could be entrusted to DSP, Headquarters, Rohtak. When the matter was entrusted to DSP, Meham on 19.11.2001, he filed cancellation report though in the morning of 19.11.2001, bail application of Pawan Kumar etc. It was submitted that DSP Rajinder Singh had no authority/jurisdiction over Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak. Investigation of case F.I.R. No. 724 could be entrusted to DSP, Headquarters, Rohtak. When the matter was entrusted to DSP, Meham on 19.11.2001, he filed cancellation report though in the morning of 19.11.2001, bail application of Pawan Kumar etc. named in F.I.R. No. 724 ibid was dismissed. Pawan Kumar etc. accused named in the F.I.R. No. 724 have never been arrested. 5. It was submitted that F.I.R. No. 159 dated 18.3.2002 of Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak is manipulated by Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak against Shri Mohinder Singh Kadian. On 30.7.2001 a complaint regarding unauthorised construction of colony by Somnath Pahwa and Rajinder Sharma was marked by the Deputy Commissioner to the petitioner for a fact finding on personal level and submit report within a week. The orders and the complaint was received by the petitioner on 2.8.2001. Rajinder Sharma is the real uncle of Pawan Kumar. On investigation, the petitioner found that Pawan Kumar and his witness Chander Bhan Subedar were among others who had entered into agreement to purchase land worth Rs. 1,71,00,000/- from Jagdish Chander and others and colony was being raised over this land. Rajinder Sharma was in possession of this agreement to sell, though the sale deed was not executed. Petitioner made a report to this effect on 8.8.2001 to Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. It was submitted that this fact itself proves that the allegation of the handing over Rs. 15 lacks on 31.7.2001 to the petitioner by Pawan Kumar in the presence of Chander Bhan, Subedar are false because it cannot be believed that a person who receives Rs. 15 lacs from "A" will make report against him just after 8 days of the receipt of such heavy amount as bribe. It was submitted that if such a report is made against a person by the official who was bribed that person will not wait and make a complaint immediately. These allegations were levelled by Pawan Kumar for the first time in his affidavit dated 26.10.2001. In the affidavit and the present F.I.R., there is no mention of the report made by the petitioner against Pawan Kumar and Chander Bhan Subedar. Copy of the report dated 8.8.2001 made by the petitioner is Annexure P-2. 6. These allegations were levelled by Pawan Kumar for the first time in his affidavit dated 26.10.2001. In the affidavit and the present F.I.R., there is no mention of the report made by the petitioner against Pawan Kumar and Chander Bhan Subedar. Copy of the report dated 8.8.2001 made by the petitioner is Annexure P-2. 6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if Mahender Singh Kadian had received Rs. 15 lacs from Pawan Kumar and some other property dealers on 31.7.2001, what was the reason that Pawan Kumar did not immediately report the matter to the police and why did he report the matter to the police through application No. 1330 SPP dated 9.11.2001 received in the police office, Rohtak from the office of Police through post. It was submitted that Pawan Kumar swung against Mahender Singh Kadian after case F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001 had been got registered under Sections 354, 506, 114 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by Smt. Kanta Alaria against Pawan Kumar, Subedar Chander Bhan and Rajinder Sharma. It was submitted that this case was the outcome of the displeasure incurred by Mahender Singh Kadian of Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak in the wake of F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001 ibid in which there is insinuation against Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak that he had already received Rs. 10 lacs from the property dealers and that he was demanding another sum of Rs. 10 lac from the property dealers so that he did not destroy/demolish the colony constructed by Pawan Kumar on 18 acres land purchased by him in Kalanaur. It was submitted that when insinuation was appearing against Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak in F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001 ibid got registered by Smt. Kanta Alaria, Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak took it upon himself to treat Mahender Singh Kadian a lesson about him he was feeling that he was close to Kanta Alaria and that the story incorporated in the F.I.R. authorised by Kanta Alaria had been master minded by Mahender Singh Kadian. It was submitted that Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner got this impression against Mahender Singh Kadian from the telephone calls which he is alleged to have made to Kanta Alaria from his mobile phone to her mobile phone. It was submitted that Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner got this impression against Mahender Singh Kadian from the telephone calls which he is alleged to have made to Kanta Alaria from his mobile phone to her mobile phone. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially case F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001 was being investigated by Sultan Singh DSP who ordered the deletion of Section 354 IPC and addition of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. Investigation was withdrawn from him and he was got transferred to Madhuban. Shri Baljit Singh SHO, Civil Lines, Rohtak who registered the case was transferred to Police Lines. Investigation was handed over to DSP Meham though he had no jurisdiction of Rohtak area. Investigation was made over to him because he is related to Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. It was submitted that the petitioner was called by Shri Anil Malik to persuade Kanta Alaria to withdraw the case. When he failed to persuade Kanta Alaria to withdraw the case, Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner got affidavit from Pawan Kumar, Subedar Chander Bhan and Rajinder Kumar 26.10.2001 with a view to show that he was innocent and that the institution made in F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001 was tissue of lies. It was submitted that F.I.R. No. 724 was entrusted for investigation to DSP Rajinder Singh so that he could manage its cancellation. It was submitted that Deputy Inspector General of Police found him innocent. Prosecution Branch also found that no case was made out against him when this information was sought regarding his liability. In nut shell the pith of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner has been roped in falsely in March, 2002 because of an incident that took place on 31.7.2001 which found mention for the first time on 9.11.2001 in application No. 1330 SPP addressed by Pawan Kumar to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak which is sequel to the case got registered by Kanta Alaria on 21.10.2001 against Pawan Kumar etc. in which there is insinuations against Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner that he had already received Rs. 10 lacs from property dealers and that he was asking another amount of Rs. 10 lacs and if he was given this amount of Rs. in which there is insinuations against Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner that he had already received Rs. 10 lacs from property dealers and that he was asking another amount of Rs. 10 lacs and if he was given this amount of Rs. 10 lacs he would regularise the unauthorised colony set up by him in Kalanaur. 7. Learned Additional Deputy Advocate General, Haryana on the other hand submitted that these are two incidents one that happened on 312.07.2001 in which Pawan Kumar says that a sum of Rs. 15 lac was obtained by Mahender Singh Kadian from him and other property dealers as illegal gratification. The other incident is dated 21.10.2001 in which Pawan Kumar etc., are pitted against Kanta Alaria. It was submitted that in the F.I.R. authored by Kanta Alaria against Pawan Kumar etc. it is Kanta Alaria saying that Pawan Kumar was soliciting her help that he had already paid Rs. 10 lacs to the Deputy Commissioner by way of illegal gratification and that he was asking for another sum of Rs. 10 lacs by way of illegal gratification for regularising unauthorised colonies. On the basis of this insinuation there could be no prosecution of Shri Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner. It was submitted that assuming that there was any insinuation against Anil Malik which calls for some probe, there could be probe against Shri Malik with regard to that insinuation. It was submitted that Mahender Singh Kadian should take care of this F.I.R. while Anil Malik, Deputy Commissioner will take care of the insinuation, if any that appears in F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001. It was submitted that in this case, no anticipatory bail should be allowed to the petitioner because if the petitioner is allowed anticipatory bail in this F.I.R., there can be no probe in re : the possession of assets by the petitioner which may not be accounted by his known sources of income. It was submitted that by introducing F.I.R. No. 724 dated 21.10.2001 authored by Smt. Kanta Alaria, the petitioner has tried to shroud the case against him in mystery. It was submitted that this mystery can be unravelled if anticipatory bail is refused to him so that he is taken hold of and investigation commenced. It was submitted that Pawan Kumar, Sanjay Parmar and Om Parkash etc. contributed various amounts totalling Rs. It was submitted that this mystery can be unravelled if anticipatory bail is refused to him so that he is taken hold of and investigation commenced. It was submitted that Pawan Kumar, Sanjay Parmar and Om Parkash etc. contributed various amounts totalling Rs. 15 lacs for being paid to Mahender Singh Kadian and the other amount was paid to him in the presence of Subedar Chander Bhan in camp office at Rohtak by Pawan Kumar. 8. In my opinion, if anticipatory bails is granted to the petitioner, that will stultify investigation. 9. For the reasons given above this Criminal Misc. fails and is dismissed. Petitioner will not be arrested forthwith but may however be arrested only after Pawan Kumar etc. happen to adduce prima facie and cogent proof of having arranged a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to be paid to Mohinder Singh Kadian.