Crl. Misc. No.M-26013 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-26013 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.03.2011 Ghasita Singh/Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Crl. Misc. No.8732 of 2010 Varinder Kumar Wahi and another ....Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No.M-26013 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No.M-8732 of 2010 as the FIR, in both the petitions, is same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No.M-26013 of 2009. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.86 dated 25.03.2009 registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt. District Ambala for offences under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Crl. Misc. No.M-26013 of 2009 2 Section 120-B IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the above noted FIR. The petitioner was serving as Clerk with the Municipal Council Ambala Sadar. He took charge as clerk somewhere in the year 2003 to 2004. The Municipal Committee/Municipal Council carried out door to door survey in the year 2000, as usual, being routine survey. This survey was conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the existing houses for the further purpose to collect house tax. During survey, one form was filled, in which, there were various columns, such as (i) general information (ii) information regarding ownership and (iii) information regarding property. Concerned deputed clerk, at relevant time, during survey, filled form No.219 related to 200-200A. On the basis of the form filled during door to door survey, the entries were further carried out entered in the Assessment Register for the year 2002-2005. In the assessment register, the name of Virender Kumar was entered as owner of House Nos.200-200A B.C. Bazar, Ambala Cantt. During scrutiny of the record and comparing with the previous assessment register, the petitioner found that w.e.f. 1990 to 2001, one Krishan Sarup s/o Mam Raj has been entered in the column of ownership of House No.200-200A, whereas, the name of Virender Kumar has been entered in the column of tenant. Therefore, the petitioner, being concerned clerk, put up the file on 10.04.2007 before the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer on 11.04.2007 granted the permission for correction of the name as Krishan Sarup instead of Virender Kumar. The police, on the basis of secret information, registered FIR No.86 dated 25.03.2009 under Sections 218, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC with the allegation that the petitioner intentionally changed the entry by showing Krishan Sarup and removing the name of Virender Kumar to save the earlier clerk who had made wrong entry in the first place. Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. As per the Crl. Misc. No.M-26013 of 2009 3 reply, on complaint of Tejinder Singh, Sub Inspector, Chief Minister Flying Squad, Haryana, FIR was registered against the present petitioner with the allegation that in the residential area known as B.C. Bazar, Indira Chowk, Ambala Cantt, property comprising No.200-200A in the records of Municipal Council, Ambala Cantt was changed in the name of Varinder Kumar by rubbing the name of actual owner Krishan Sarup. This was done by two Municipal Employees Ghasita Singh (petitioner) and Satish Kumar in connivance with Varinder Kumar. Further, the accused have raised construction upto third storey without getting the plans passed and the trial Court was seized of the matter and the case was fixed for framing of charges, hence, the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage. It was further contended that the Committee had no authority to change the name without issuing notice to the owner and that the accused have, therefore, rightly been charge sheeted. Heard. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the petition, as well as, reply filed by the State, it emerges that there are two allegations in the FIR. Firstly, that various shop keepers including the petitioner No.1 in Crl. Misc. No.M-8732 of 2010 raised construction on the shops under their tenancy unauthorisedly without getting the site plan approved by bribing the officials of the municipal committee. The second allegation is that the name of Varinder Kumar Wahi was entered in the column of ownership by deleting the name of real owner Krishan Sarup. It is admitted that there is a separate Act for dealing with the first allegation. It is also admitted that no offence qua the allegation of raising the building in violation of the provisions of such an Act has been added. Hence, in the present case we are concerned only with the second allegation. With respect to the second allegation, some of the following Crl. Misc. No.M-26013 of 2009 4 facts are admitted ; (a) The petitioner brought the fact about incorrect entry to the notice of the Executive Officer and the Executive Officer granted permission for correction of the name as Krishan Sarup instead of Varinder Kumar. (b) Krishan Sarup, the original owner has not raised any objection till date. (c) Varinder Kumar Wahi, too, did not object when the records were corrected and Krishan Sarup was once again shown as the owner and the name of Varinder Kumar Wahi was deleted from the column of ownership. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute the above factual position. Even after registration of the case, the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee wrote to the authorities that no offence was made out and that the petitioner had sought permission for correction of the name from the Executive Officer. In view of the above facts, it is not understood as to how the police allowed the procedure of law to be misused by registering the FIR, especially when the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, informed the S.H.O that the correction was done in routine after due permission. Surprisingly, the FIR was registered, even though, neither of the two affected and concerned parties i.e. Krishan Sarup and Varinder Kumar Wahi, till date, raised any objection. Obviously, the said FIR was registered on the alleged secret information even without holding any prior enquiry and even if such enquiry was held it was nothing but an eye wash. In view of the above facts, it is evident that the FIR has been Crl. Misc. No.M-26013 of 2009 5 registered with some ulterior motive and is a misuse of process of law. Moreover, no offence is made out. There is no loss to anyone. In fact, it appears to be a mere error which was subsequently allowed to be corrected. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.86 dated 25.03.2009 registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt. District Ambala for offences under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the above noted FIR are, hereby, quashed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 22.03.2011 JUDGE gurpreet