Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 99 (HP)

Pradeep Kumar Tuli v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-03-16

KULDIP SINGH

body2012
Judgment Kuldip Singh, J. This petition has been filed for quashing Criminal trial State vs. Pradeep Kumar Tuli pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nalagarh arising out of FIR No. 177 dated 29.9.2006 registered at Police Station, Barotiwala. 2. The facts as alleged are that Deputy Commissioner, Solan vide letter dated 5.10.2006 addressed to Superintendent of Police, Solan made a complaint that M/s Beta Builders Pvt. Ltd. has preferred an application for purchase of 14 biswas of land comprising Khasra No. 740/607/2 and Khasra No. 742/607/2 situated at Village Kunjahal, Tehsil Nalagarh. It was found that the said Builders had already purchased land comprised in Khasra No. 740/607/1, 741/607/1, 742/607/1, 507, 509 and 511 measuring 31-12 bighas in village Kunjahal and Jharmajri, Tehsil Nalagarh on the basis of forged permission letter dated 12.4.2006 of H.P. Government. As per record of D.C.office for the purchase of aforesaid land, no such permission was issued by the Government in respect of the aforesaid Builders. In these circumstances, FIR No. 183 of 2006 under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC was registered at Police Station, Barotiwala. 3. Anil Garg, a Director of M/s Beta Builders alleged that Company made an agreement for the purchase of land at Village Kunjahal and Jharmajri measuring 31-12 bighas for construction of residential colony. The company took the services of Architect, staff, liaisoning people to complete the legal formalities for getting clearance/permission for registration of the land and construction of housing colony. Ganesh Abrol, Chartered Accountant and partner of M/s S.S. Kothari and Company practicing in Chandigarh assured for the completion of formalities to the Company like obtaining necessary permissions. Anil Garg further alleged that Ganesh Abrol was doing the aforesaid work through Pradeep Tuli, Company Secretary. 4. The Company in order to avoid delay in execution of the project, talked to the petitioner directly and gave him documents for obtaining permission under Section 118 of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short ‘Act’) for purchasing land. The Company had completed all formalities. The D.C.Office, Solan vide letter dated 1.4.2006 informed that necessary formalities have been fulfilled for issuing permission under Section 118. It has been alleged that petitioner informed the Company about the permission granted by the Government. The Company decided to obtain permission for 14 biswas of land also. The Company had completed all formalities. The D.C.Office, Solan vide letter dated 1.4.2006 informed that necessary formalities have been fulfilled for issuing permission under Section 118. It has been alleged that petitioner informed the Company about the permission granted by the Government. The Company decided to obtain permission for 14 biswas of land also. The Company applied for obtaining permission under Section 118 for 14 biswas land. Lateron it was found that permission obtained by the petitioner under Section 118 of the Act on 12.4.2006 was fraudulent, on this FIR No. 177 of 2006 dated 29.9.2006 was registered at Police Station, Barotiwala under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The police after completion of investigation has filed challan on 30.3.2010 in the Court at Nalagarh. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Solan initiated process for vesting of the land purchased on the strength of alleged forged permission under Section 118 of the Act. The Incharge, Police Station, Barotiwala submitted cancellation report in FIR No. 183 of 2006 dated 12.10.2006 before the learned Magistrate on 8.8.2010. The petitioner objected the cancellation report. The Deputy Commissioner, Solan also objected the cancellation report. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (II), Nalagarh on 19.8.2011 rejected the cancellation report in FIR No. 183 of 2006. The case file returned to the Police with directions to investigate the case in accordance with law. The petitioner vide application dated 22.10.2011 requested the learned Magistrate to keep the case State vs. Pradeep arising out of FIR No. 177 of 2006 in abeyance till final outcome of further investigation in FIR No. 183 of 2006. 6. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 19.8.2011 has concluded that police has not properly investigated the case and its cancellation report in FIR No. 183 of 2006 has been rejected. The incident involved in FIR No. 177 of 2006 in which petitioner is facing trial is same and similar to FIR No. 183 of 2006 with respect to alleged forged permission obtained by M/s Beta Builders from the State Government. It has been submitted that in view of order dated 19.8.2011 in FIR No. 183 of 2006 the trial of the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 177 of 2006 has become inconsequential and the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 177 of 2006 is liable to be quashed. 7. It has been submitted that in view of order dated 19.8.2011 in FIR No. 183 of 2006 the trial of the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 177 of 2006 has become inconsequential and the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 177 of 2006 is liable to be quashed. 7. The allegations against the petitioner in FIR No. 177 of 2006 are that petitioner procured the forged permission under Section 118 of the Act. FIR No. 183 of 2006 has been lodged by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan against M/s Beta Builders for fake permission under Section 118 of the Act. The prayer has been made for quashing criminal case State vs. Pradeep Kumar arising out of FIR No. 177 of 2006 and pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nalagarh. 8. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR No. 183 of 2006 and FIR No. 177 of 2006 both registered at Police Station, Barotiwala have been registered on the common allegation questioning permission under Section 118 of the Act for purchasing the land by M/s Beta Builders. The cancellation report in FIR No. 183 of 2006 has been rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (II), Nalagarh on 19.8.2011 with a direction to police to carry out further investigation. In these circumstances, FIR No. 177 of 2006 and criminal case arising out of FIR No. 177 of 2006 are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and others (2010) 12 SCC 254 in support of his submissions. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the petition and has submitted that the FIR No. 183 of 2006 and FIR No. 177 of 2006 are independent and separate FIRs and, therefore, FIR No. 177 of 2006 alongwith criminal case arising out of FIR No. 177 of 2006 cannot be quashed, the FIR No. 177 of 2006 is earlier in time. 9. The petitioner has placed on record copies of FIR No. 177 of 2006 dated 29.9.2006 and FIR No. 183 of 2006 dated 12.10.2006. FIR No. 177 of 2006 has been registered on the written complaint of Anil Kumar Garg. Anil Kumar Garg has alleged that M/s Beta Builders had made an agreement for purchasing the land measuring 31-12 bighas at Villages Kunjahal and Jharmajri, Tehsil Nalagarh. FIR No. 177 of 2006 has been registered on the written complaint of Anil Kumar Garg. Anil Kumar Garg has alleged that M/s Beta Builders had made an agreement for purchasing the land measuring 31-12 bighas at Villages Kunjahal and Jharmajri, Tehsil Nalagarh. The Company had engaged Architect, staff , liaisoning people to prepare the required details and complete the legal formalities for getting clearances/permission for registration of the land and construction of the housing colony. The Company engaged one Mr. Dinesh Abrol, Chartered Accountant. The Company came to know that Mr. Dinesh Abrol had been doing the job through Pradeep Tuli petitioner. The services of Dinesh Abrol were taken for 3-4 months, lateron the Company directly took the services of Pradeep Tuli and one Ashwani Kaushesh for liaisoning job. They were to be paid their fees and reimbursement of the actual expenses incurred on the work. 10. It has been alleged that the Company had been supplying the documents to Pradeep Tuli and Ashwani Kaushesh for obtaining permission under Section 118 of the Act. The D.C.office, Solan had written letter dated 1.4.2006 to Revenue Secretary, H.P.Govt. that all necessary formalities have been fulfilled for issue of permission under Section 118, hence the same may be given to the Company as per the Government policy. Thereafter, Pradeep Tuli informed the Company that permission under Section 118 had been obtained and now registration of land can be made. Pradeep Tuli delivered the said permission to Anil Kumar Garg, whole time Director of the Company. Pradeep Tuli was paid ` 11,000/- in addition to the payments made to him from time to time against fees and reimbursement of actual expenses. The Company got registration of the land on 18.4.2006 at Nalagarh. 11. The Company had made an agreement for purchase of 14 biswas of land adjacent to the earlier piece of land. It has been alleged that after expiry of few months progress in the permission (14 biswas) was not satisfactory. The Company representative for obtaining permission under Section 118 of the Act for 14 biswas of land visited offices at Shimla. The office of Deputy Commissioner, Solan was also contacted for clearance of Section 118 application. The Company was shocked to know that permission under Section 118 dated 12.4.2006 given by Pradeep Tuli petitioner was a fraudulent. The Company representative for obtaining permission under Section 118 of the Act for 14 biswas of land visited offices at Shimla. The office of Deputy Commissioner, Solan was also contacted for clearance of Section 118 application. The Company was shocked to know that permission under Section 118 dated 12.4.2006 given by Pradeep Tuli petitioner was a fraudulent. The Company people met officers in the D.C. office, Solan and revenue office at Shimla and explained their position. It has been alleged that Directors and Officers of the Company were not involved in the fraudulent act, fraud was committed by Pradeep Tuli petitioner and his associates. On this FIR No. 177 of 2006 was registered. 12. FIR No. 183 of 2006 has been registered on the basis of letter of Deputy Commissioner, Solan. In FIR No. 183 of 2006, it has been alleged that the Company had filed application dated 30.8.2006 for purchase of 14 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.740/607/2 and 742/607/2 situated at Village Kunjahal, Tehsil Nalagarh. On receipt of application, it was found that M/s Beta Builders have already purchased the land comprising Khasra Nos. 740/607/1, 741/607, 742/607/1, 507, 509 and 511 measuring 31-12 bighas situated in Villages Kunjahal and Jharmajri, on the basis of forged permission letter of H.P.Govt. dated 12.4.2006. As per office record of the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, no such permission has been issued by the Government for purchasing above land in favour of M/s Beta Builders. A request was made for registration of the case and on this, case was registered. 13. In Babubhai (supra) an FIR being case CR. No. I-154 of 2008 was registered at 1730 hrs. on 8.7.2008 in Bavla Police Station. Another FIR being case CR No. I-155 of 2008 was registered at Bavla Police Station on 8.7.2008 at 2235 hrs. The High Court by judgment and final order dated 22.12.2009 quashed the FIR registered as CR No.I-155 of 2008 and clubbed the investigation of the FIR alongwith the investigation of the other FIR bearing CR No.I-154 of 2008 to the extent it was possible with further directions. 14. The Supreme Court held it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the police officer in charge of the police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. 14. The Supreme Court held it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the police officer in charge of the police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the first information report will be statements falling under Section 162 Cr.P.C. It has also been held that the Court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. 15. In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court the controversy in the petition is very limited. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR and Criminal Case State vs. Pradeep Kumar pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nalagarh. The case of the petitioner has arisen from FIR No. 177 of 2006 dated 29.9.2006 which is prior in time in comparison to FIR No. 183 of 2006 dated 12.10.2006. In these circumstances, even if it is assumed that there is similarity of allegations in two FIRs still in view of Babubhai (supra) FIR No. 177 of 2006 and criminal case arising out of FIR No. 177 of 2006 cannot be quashed. This petition has been disposed of on this ground alone. The Court has not gone into the question that there is similarity of allegations in two FIRs. This question is left open. 16. In view of above, there is no merit in the petition, which is dismissed. Cr.M.P. No. 917 of 2011 has become infructuous in view of disposal of the main petition.