IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 2 of 2006. Date of Decision: May 3, 2011. ____________________________________________________________ Alark Singh. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the Petitioner : None (Absent despite service of notice of hearing) For the respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. ______________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J (oral): The instant revision petition has been directed by Kanwar Alark Singh through his General Power of Attorney Shri Rajinder Singh, challenging the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur district at Nahan in case No.281/4 of 2003 titled as Jabbar Singh Bhandari vs. State of H.P., whereby the protest / objection petition against the cancellation report filed through Rajinder Singh, General Power of Attorney in FIR No.75/84 dated 29.6.84 was dismissed and the request for re- Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - investigating the case by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was declined. 2. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present petition can be stated thus. Shri Jabbar Singh Bhandari was the General Power of Attorney of H.H. Prem Lata Devi. (ii) He got registered an FIR No.75/84 under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code by the orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging theft of some valuable articles from the strong room of the Royal Palace at Nahan; without naming the accused persons. (iii) The police investigated the matter. The place of incident was visited. They found the strong room locked, sealed and prepared site plan. An unsigned list of the property alleged to have been kept in the strong room was also handed over to the police by the complainant, which was taken into possession. (iv) During the investigation, the strong room from all the sides was found intact. Since the strong room was found intact, as such, cancellation report was - 3 - presented in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan. (v) On the perusal of the investigation record, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not feel satisfied, as such ordered for re-investigation. The said order was upheld by the Court of Sessions as well as the High Court, thus, police had to re- investigate the case. (vi) The re-investigation was conducted by the then Additional Superintendent of Police Shri Pardeep Kumar, duly assisted by other senior Police Officers subordinate to him. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On 16.12.1999, search warrants of the strong room were obtained from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Three locks which were found on the strong room were broken open in the presence of the witnesses and on the inspection of the strong room by the police team in the presence of the witnesses, the strong room was found empty. (vii) On the inspection of the strong room, from inside and outside the police did not find any sign of house breaking, thus they concluded that there was - 4 - no question of committing theft from the said premises, rather during investigation of the case, on the examination of the legal heirs and other witnesses the facts which surfaced were that H.H. Maharani Padmini Devi admitted that during the lifetime H.H. Maharaja Rajinder Prakash, all the moveable property was divided inter-se his legal heirs, but no writing to that effect was ever executed. Her statement was supported by Shri Uday Prakash during the investigation by the police. It also came to light that H.H. Maharaja Rajinder Parkash had left the ‘Royal Palace’ Nahan and settled down at Dehradun, where he died in the year 1964. His dead-body was brought to Nahan, where it was cremated. None of the legal heirs of deceased Maharaja Rajinder Prakash had ever lived at Nahan. (viii) There was no question of putting any valuable articles in the strong room. (ix) H.H. Prem Lata Devi was alive in the year 1982 and she died in the year 1986, but did not make any statement to the police about the alleged theft. - 5 - (x) Jabbar Singh Bhandari her General Power of Attorney had lodged the complaint in the year 1984, which smacks of foul play. 3. Against the aforesaid background, the police could not find any direct and circumstantial evidence with respect to the alleged theft. They also apprehended that Shri Jabbar Singh Bhandari, General Power of Attorney of H.H. Prem Lata Devi might have lodged a false report to get some undue benefit. Since, Jabbar Singh Bhandari had also died, police presented the cancellation report in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan. 4. Vide order dated 20.10.2003, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered to issue notice to the legal heirs of H.H. Maharaja Rajinder Prakash, namely Maharaja Virender Singh of Chhota Udaipur (Gujarat) and Uday Parkash adopted son of H.H. Maharani Padmini Devi widow of Maharaja Rajinder Prakash to afford an opportunity to file objection to the cancellation report. They put in appearance through their counsel but did not object to it, however, one Dr. Virender Singh and Kanwar Alark Singh through his General Power of Attorney raised the objections. Vide his objection petition, GPA of Alark - 6 - Singh requested for C.B.I. inquiry, but his request was declined by the impugned order which is under challenge. 5. Notice of hearing of this revision petition was sent to the General Power of Attorney of Alark Singh. He stands served, but did not put in appearance. 6. Shri A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General supports the cancellation report and also submitted that civil litigation, which was pending inter-se the parties in the High Court with respect to the property of ‘Royal Palace’ Nahan also stands settled and a compromise decree has been passed. 7. Insofar as the present petition is concerned, as already stated above, a case under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on 29.6.1984 on a complaint filed by Jabbar Singh Bhandari, General Power of Attorney of H.H. Prem Lata Devi in terms of FIR No.75/84 wherein neither the name of the accused nor details of the property were mentioned regarding which the alleged theft was committed. Rather it made a reference that it could be ascertained by breaking open the locks of the strong room. Pursuant to the warrants, when the locks of the strong room were broken open by the police - 7 - in the year 1999, nothing was found therein and there was no sign of house breaking which could even lead to an inference that a mischief was played. Statement of H.H. Padmini Devi was recorded during re-investigation. She also stated that during the lifetime of H.H. Maharaja Rajinder Prakash, the whole moveable property was divided amongst his legal heirs, but no writing was executed to that effect as stated above. 8. The petitioner herein, though filed the protest / objection petition, but in my opinion he has no locus- standi as he is neither an informant nor has been shown to be the legal heir of the deceased informant, thus, he cannot also seek CBI inquiry in absence of any cogent and reliable material on record. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as such the revision petition is dismissed. 10. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh) Judge. May 3, 2011. (Pds)