Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 903 (HP)

Mingchong Dorje alias Yab v. State of H. P.

2015-07-16

P.S.RANA

body2015
Order : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 21 dated 30.7.2011 registered with Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau at Mandi under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In alternative relief sought to expedite the investigation. Additional relief sought for release of original documents of petitioner i.e. passport and identity card which have been seized during investigation. It is pleaded that petitioner is a Tibetan but born and brought up in India and is an Indian citizen. It is pleaded that petitioner was issued valid and legal passport No. B0335715 on dated 3.1.2000 by Government of India from Srinagar (J&K) and father’s name of petitioner has been shown as Tashi and mother’s name of petitioner has been shown as Tsering and place of birth has been shown as Leh (J&K) and date of birth has been shown as 3.4.1960. It is pleaded that as per memorandum issued by Union Government of India No. 15013/29/83-F.IV any Tibetan born in India after 26.1.1950 shall be deemed to be a citizen of India. It is further pleaded that on dated 30.7.2011 FIR No. 21 was filed with P.S. Mandi District Anti Corruption Bureau alleging that petitioner is a Tibetan refugee who in connivance with the then Tehsildar District Leh got prepared false certificate of Indian and thereafter presented the application before Tehsildar Sadar Mandi for permission from H.P. Government under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 for transferring the land in favour of the petitioner on the basis of Will executed by Kusub Kula. It is pleaded that thereafter permission was received from H.P. Government for transfer of land in favour of petitioner on the basis of Will under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 and land of Kusub Kula was illegally transferred in the name of petitioner Mingchong Dorje alias Yab. It is pleaded that after registration of FIR No. 21 dated 30.7.2011 petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. for grant of bail and same was rejected by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in Cr.MP(M) No. 658 of 2011. It is pleaded that after registration of FIR No. 21 dated 30.7.2011 petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. for grant of bail and same was rejected by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in Cr.MP(M) No. 658 of 2011. It is pleaded that thereafter petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of filing Special Leave to appeal i.e. SLP (Criminal) No. 7757 of 2011 and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide orders dated 4.11.2011 and 27.2.2012 granted protection to the petitioner. It is pleaded that even after lapse of more than three years investigating agency did not file challan before competent Court of law and original documents of petitioner are lying with investigating agency. Prayer for acceptance of petition sought. 2. Per contra response filed on behalf of the non-petitioners pleaded therein that petitioner is a Tibetan who was registered in India under R/C No. 3811/L/93/481-13 as a Tibetan refugee dated 20.9.1993. It is pleaded that petitioner had concealed his nationality as Tibetan and managed to procure the Indian passport. It is pleaded that investigating agency had collected the record from Delhi, District Collector office Mandi, Secretary Revenue Shimla, Riwalsar, Leh, Srinagar and Palampur and investigation is delayed keeping in view the seriousness of offence. It is pleaded that on account of fabricated documents petitioner got permission under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 from H.P. Government to transfer land at Rewalsar District Mandi (H.P.) in his name and also in name of another Tibetan national namely Sonam G. Hara by way of ‘Will’ executed by Kushok Bakulla who died on dated 4.11.2003. It is further pleaded that D.C. Mandi vide order dated 18.2.2014 ordered vestment of land in State of H.P. which was obtained by way of ‘Will’ by petitioner at Riwalsar through misrepresentation. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 3. Court heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and heard learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners and also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in present case:- 1. Whether petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? 2. Final Order. Reasons for findings on Point No.1. 5. 4. Following points arise for determination in present case:- 1. Whether petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? 2. Final Order. Reasons for findings on Point No.1. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that FIR No. 21 dated 30.7.2011 registered with P.S. Mandi Anti Corruption Bureau under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 be quashed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. After carefully perusal of contents of petition and after carefully perusal of response filed by non-petitioners it is proved on record that material disputed question of facts are raised by parties in their pleading and same cannot be decided at this stage without giving due opportunity to both the parties to prove their case and without giving opportunity of cross examination to adverse party. (See JT 2015(3) SC 185 titled Taramani Pharak vs. State of M.P. and others. Also see JT 2003(3) SC 277 titled B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another. Also See JT 2012(9) SC 426 titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another.) 6. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that non-petitioners be directed to release the original documents of petitioner i.e. passport and identity card of petitioner is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is the case of non-petitioners that petitioner had obtained passport and identity card on the basis of forged residential address. It is also prima facie proved on record that passport and identity card are case property and Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the passport and identity card to the petitioner till conclusion of trial by learned trial Court. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that non-petitioners be directed to expedite the investigation and submit the report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 investigating agency is under legal obligation to complete the investigation without unnecessary delay. As per Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 investigating agency is under legal obligation to complete the investigation without unnecessary delay. Slackness on the part of investigating agency could result in disappearance of material evidence which might be available. (See AIR 1970 Delhi 154 titled Ajit Singh and another vs. The State) It is well settled law that expeditious investigation does not only benefit the accused but also benefit the State. In present case it is proved on record that FIR No. 21 was registered on dated 30.7.2011 and it is proved on record that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India disposed of SLP (Criminal) No. 7757 of 2011 on dated 27.02.2012. In view of above stated facts it is expedient in the ends of justice to direct the investigating agency to expedite the investigation. Point No. 1 is partly answered in favour of the petitioner. Point No. 2 (Final Order) 8. In view of findings on point No. 1 petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed and non-petitioners are directed to submit report of investigation under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 before the competent Court of law within two months from today. Other reliefs sought declined in the ends of justice. Petition is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.