Disposed

Brij Bhushan Bhardwaj and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Apr 2009CRM-M/51505/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an FIR alleging land allotment corruption under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The single judge held that without access to prosecution evidence, the Court could not form a prima facie opinion and directed the trial Court to examine the case records before deciding on the merit of the plea.

What did the court decide?

Present petition disposed off with observations directing trial Court to examine evidence before forming opinion on offence.

Brij Bhushan Bhardwaj and Ors. Vs State of Haryana — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-51505 of 2007

¶3

Date of decision: 16^th April, 2009

¶4

Brij Bhushan Bhardawaj and others

… Petitioners

State of Haryana

… Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Amit Khatkar, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State.

¶11

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No. 35 dated 17.07.2006 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Hisar under Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC.

¶13

FIR has been annexed as Annexure P-1. A perusal of the FIR reveals that a complaint was received against Karam Narayan, ExPresident of the Municipal Committee, Ratia by the Chief Secretary of Government of Haryana. The same was sent for inquiry to Vigilance Bureau. It was stated in the complaint that Karam Narayan, the then President of Municipal Committee, Ratia had carved out plots in the land of Municipal Committee, Ratia, which was lying vacant and he allotted the same to the officials of the Municipal Committee, Ratia, after obtaining the affidavits from them that they were not having any plot earlier. Rs.3,000/-

¶14

¶15

Criminal Misc. No. M-51505 of 2007

¶16

and Rs.1,000/- were taken from each employee, to whom the plots were allotted. It is stated that some of the officials, after the allotment of the plots, have sold the same and some of them have rented out the plots.

¶17

During inquiry, it surfaced that Municipal Committee, Ratia was owner of land measuring 19 kanals and 7 marlas, comprising in Khewat No. 1356 and Khasra No. 56. Municipal Committee, Ratia also passed a resolution and got prepared a site plan and carved out plots for allotment to 26 officials of Municipal Committee, Ratia.

¶18

Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Vikrant Pamboo, has stated that if officials of the Municipal Committee, Ratia in pursuance of a scheme floated and for which resolution was passed by the Municipal Committee, Ratia, have been allotted plots, petitioners being allotees cannot be fastened with any criminal liability. He has further submitted that the Director, Local Bodies has given ex-post facto permission for the allotment of the plots. He has further stated that communications were exchanged between various officials of the Government and the Municipal Committee, Ratia regarding proposal, validity of the scheme, due to which plots were allotted.

¶19

Mr. Amit Khatkar, Assistant Advocate General Haryana appearing for the State, on instructions from Pat Ram, SP, Vigilance Bureau, Hisar, has stated that ex-post facto permission granted by the Department of Local Bodies has been withdrawn.

¶20

Mr. Atul Lakhanpal has stated that even if the permission has been withdrawn, it will not make the allotment of plots an offence under any of the provisions of Indian Penal Code. He has stated that no offence of cheating is made out.

¶21

Prima facie, there seems merit in this contention.

¶22

Mr. Amit Khatkar, AAG Haryana, on an observation made by this Court as to how offence is made out, has submitted that after

¶23

¶24

Criminal Misc. No. M-51505 of 2007

¶25

registration of the FIR, entire evidence was gathered, which has been presented before the trial Court in form of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan).

¶26

Now, a question arises, that if prima facie no offence is made out, from the bare perusal of the FIR, should this Court cause interference and quash the FIR ?

¶27

This Court is deprived of the evidence gathered and the documents relied by the prosecution. Trial Court is seized of the matter. Therefore, trial Court shall examine all the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and shall also minutely scan the evidence gathered and then the trial Court shall formulate a prima facie opinion whether any offence is made out against the petitioners or not. In case trial Court comes to the conclusion that no offence is made out, it goes without saying that petitioners will be discharged. In case trial Court comes to the conclusion that offence is made out, it is expected that the Court will pass a well reasoned order. However, petitioners will be at liberty to assail that order.

¶28

With these observations, present petition is disposed off.

¶29

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶30

April 16, 2009 rps

Brij Bhushan Bhardwaj and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Bhushan Bhardwaj and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wazir Khan Vs State of Pb.

Harchand Singh Vs State of Hy.

Jagdish Chander Jain Vs Sunhera Singh

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhwant Singh Kalsi Vs M/S Jain Boutique and Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs Gurmail Singh and Ors.