Criminal Misc.-M No. 22434 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 22434 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.08.2011 Narender ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sarfarj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Varmani, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the complainant. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.311 dated 9.5.2011 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station City, Gurgaon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The father of the petitioner filed a civil suit annexing Jamabandis, the certified copies of which were handed over to him by the Patwari. Civil Suit was decreed ex parte, as the Gram Panchayat, which was one of the defendants, did not put in appearance. The petitioner as well as his father and brother had not done any tampering in the revenue record, whatever Jamabandis were supplied to the petitioner or his father, the same were produced before the court. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as complainant submitted that the petitioner, his father and his brother had got the revenue record tampered with. The land pertaining to Khasra No.755 of Village Nathupur was, in fact, recorded in the ownership of Gram Panchayat as Gair Mumkin Nala, which could not be in possession of the petitioner or Criminal Misc.-M No. 22434 of 2011 2 his father. However, the accused in the present case got the revenue record tampered and entries were converted into merely Gair Mumkin. On the basis of copies of the Jamabandis obtained thereafter, civil suit was filed. On ac- count of non-representation of Gram Panchayat, the same was decreed ex parte. However, subsequently one of the members Panchayat filed appeal against the ex parte judgment and decree of the civil court, which was ac- cepted and the matter was remanded back. The plaintiffs in the suit filed SAO No.32 of 2008 before this Court, which was dismissed on March 15, 2010. Learned State counsel further submitted that there is conceal- ment of facts in the petition filed by the petitioner as stated in para No.8 of the petition. The petitioner has mentioned that father of the petitioner had inherited the tenancy rights from his forefathers and the learned civil court had already declared them as occupancy tenants and in that capacity, they were held to be owners of the disputed property. Ex-parte decree in the suit passed in favour of the father of the petitioner on 7.4.2008, was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge on 25.8.2008 and even appeal before this Court was dismissed on March 15, 2010. Facts subsequent to the pass- ing of the decree have been concealed. Learned State counsel further referred to communication of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon dated 29.03.2011 to the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon highlighting forging of revenue record, which is main- tained by the Patwari and also in the Government record, namely, the Part Patwar and the Part Sarkar. He had also referred to details regarding inter- polation and the cutting made in the revenue record and also names of the Patwaries, who were holding office at the relevant time including the Re- cord Keeper, who was keeping the record of Part Sarkar. However, he sub- mitted that none of the Patwaries, whose names were mentioned by the Dep- uty Commissioner in the communication to the Commissioner of Police, has been joined in investigation. Not only this, even the Sarpanch against whom allegation regarding connivance with the petitioner and his father is there in the FIR and for whose non-appearance the civil suit was decreed ex parte, has also not been joined in investigation. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner does not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Criminal Misc.-M No. 22434 of 2011 3 Heard learned counsel for the parties. As far as the present petition is concerned, the same is required to be dismissed merely on the ground of concealment of facts from the Court. The petitioner had mentioned only regarding passing of a decree by the Civil Court in favour of his father. Though the date thereof has not been mentioned, the same is dated 7.4.2008. He had concealed the fact that the same was set aside by the learned Lower Appellate Court on 25.8.2008 and further even the appeal before this Court was also dismissed on March 15, 2010. The petition was filed in this Court on July 20, 2011. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. As far as investigation in the present case is concerned, despite communication dated 29.03.2011 of Deputy Commissioner to the Commis- sioner of Police though the FIR was registered on May 09, 2011 on a com- plaint by the private person but still the police has not taken appropriate ac- tion. None of the Patwaries has even been interrogated for their role in the process. Even the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Nathupur, who had al- legedly connived with the petitioner and his father by not appearing in the court in the civil suit filed by them has also not been examined. Today one Criminal Misc.-M No.25083 of 2011 is also listed before this Court where prayer by the petitioner herein is for transfer of the investigation of the case in hand outside District Gurgaon. Considering the facts of the case as have been mentioned above on the prayer made by the petitioner, it is not a case for transfer of investiga- tion outside the district. The petition is misconceived and is dismissed. However, if the police authorities continue to behave in the manner investi- gation has been done till today, this court may consider entrusting investiga- tion of the case to some other independent agency, as apparently it is handi work of a land mafia. Adjourned to 15.09.2011. Copy of this order be given dasti to the State Counsel under Signature of the Bench Secretary. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 30.08.2011 Criminal Misc.-M No. 22434 of 2011 4 sharmila