IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O No. 45 of 2005 Date of decision: 7.3.2008 R.S. Kamal …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. In the year 1991, certain property situated in the area of Jhakri, a place situated within Rampur Sub Division, was acquired for a power project that was to be executed by Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation. One D.P. Sood was the Land Acquisition Collector, at the relevant time. A scheme, for rehabilitation of the owners of the property that was acquired, was formulated. The scheme, inter alia, provided that the persons, whose business premises had been acquired, would be compensated for the loss of business and shifting of the business premises to other places. Said Shri D.P. Sood, Land Acquisition Collector, being new to the area, constituted a Committee consisting of Patwari, Field Kanungo, Pardhan of the Panchayat, Up Pardhan of the Panchayat and the present petitioner, who at that time, was working as Superintending Engineer with the State Electricity Board and many more persons. The Committee was to submit its Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… report containing the names of the persons, whose business premises had been acquired and the estimated business loss sustained by them, on account of such acquisition and also the money likely to be spent by them for shifting their business to other places. 3. The Committee submitted the report. Present petitioner, being one of the members of the Committee, also signed that report. One of the persons, whose name was recommended for award of compensation, on account of loss of business and shifting the business premises, was Baldev Singh, who happened to be a brother of the present petitioner, who was, at that time, on deputation with the Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation. Shri D.P. Sood, the Land Acquisition Collector, passed an award in the year 1991, based on the aforesaid report. Said Shri Baldev Singh was awarded Rs.34,000/- and odds for business loss, in respect of his business named and styled as Shiv Shakti General Store. In addition to that, a sum of Rs.500/- was awarded on account of Shifting of business premises. 4. In the year 1992, one Chaman Lal lodged a complaint with the police that the above named Baldev Singh did not have any business by the name and style of Shiv Shakti General Store, in his building and that he had been awarded compensation on account of loss of business and shifting of business premises, with a view to giving him undue benefit, as he happened to be a brother of the petitioner, a serving Superintending Engineer. 5. Case was registered in the year 1992 itself. Report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed against the present petitioner, said Shri D.P. Sood and certain other persons, in May, 2003. Allegation against the present petitioner is that he signed the report knowing that Baldev Singh did not have any business under the aforesaid name and style in …3… the building owned by him and that he did so with a view to giving undue monetary benefit to said Baldev Singh and causing wrongful loss to the Government. 6. Present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR and the challan. It may be stated that the above-named Land Acquisition Collector also filed a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the challan as against him. Matter was heard by this Court and the case as against him was quashed, vide order dated 7.7.2004. A certified copy of the order has been placed on record. I have been told that Special Leave Petition was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid order of this Court, which stands dismissed. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 7.7.2004 of this Court shows that the material collected by the police, to be produced as evidence during trial, itself suggested that Baldev Singh had been running a business in the building, in question, which was owned by him, but the name of the owner of the building had been wrongly recorded in the list prepared by the Committee. The land Acquisition Collector, namely D.P. Sood, while verifying the list, carried out correction and recorded the name of Baldev Singh as owner of the building. Entry already existed in the list that there was, being run a business, in the name and style of Shiv Shakti General Store, in the said building. The order further shows that the Investigating Agency filed the challan only on the basis of the information gathered from the employees of Food and Civil Supply Department and the Weights and Measures Department, which revealed that no business in the name and style of Shiv Shakti General Store had been registered with the said Departments. However, the material collected by the Investigating …4… Agency showed that Baldev Singh had been having an account with a bank in the name of Shiv Shakti General Store and had been sanctioned over-draft facility in the said account, for running the business. Taking into account all these facts, this Court vide order dated 7.7.2004, allowed the petition filed by said D.P. Sood and quashed the proceedings as against him. 8. The observations pertaining to factual position made by this Court in its order dated 7.7.2004, while disposing of the petition filed by D.P. Sood, clearly show that a business was being run in the building of Baldev Singh, in the name and style of Shiv Shakti General Store and there was also a bank account in the said name and style, which was operated by said Baldev Singh, being the sole proprietor of the said business. 9. Now, if Baldev Singh had had his business in the building, in question, by the name and style of Shiv Shakti General Store, it cannot be said that the present petitioner, alongwith other members of the Committee, reported falsely that said Baldev Singh was entitled to compensation on account of business loss and shifting charges. 10. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is allowed and the challan and the proceedings against the present petitioner are quashed. March 7, 2008(ss) (Surjit Singh), J