ASHISH CHADHA Vs. ASHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first Respondent was the member of the Legislative Assembly of Banikhet Constituency from the year 1984 to 1990 and 1994 to 2001. A complaint dated 6.8.1998 was filed against her by one Shri Kuldeep Singh, Ex-Municipal Councilor, Dalhousie alleging interalia that the first Respondent and her husband Brijender Singh (since deceased) had in connivance with Revenue Officials manipulated the revenue records, forged documents and got the land belonging to the Government transferred in the name of Brijender Singh. The said complaint was inquired into by Vigilance Department and FIR came to be registered on 15.12.2001 against the first Respondent and Brijender Singh and Ors. under Sections 420, 218, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). The Special Judge, Chamba framed charges against the first Respondent and others on 4.1.2005 under Sections 420, 218, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The first Respondent filed Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2005 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla challenging the order dated 4.1.2005 framing charges. By the impugned order the High Court set aside the said order on the ground that the accused were denied an opportunity of being heard and that the trial courts observation that there was prima facie case against the accused was made without applying mind to the relevant record. The High Court also transferred the matter from the court of Special Judge Chamba to the Court of Special Judge Kangra at Dharmashala on the ground that the apprehension expressed by Respondent No. 1 that she would not get fair trial in the Court at Chamba was well founded. A direction was issued that the matter be proceeded with in accordance with the provisions of Sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the "Code" for Short). It may be stated here that the original complainant Shri Kuldeep Singh expired in 2001. The Appellant was the elected Municipal Councilor of Dhalhousie Municipal Committee from 1995 to 2000 and from 2000 till it was suspended in 2003. It is the case of the Appellant that the State of Himachal Pradesh for political reasons was not interested in challenging the impugned judgment though in this case there is illegal grabbing of Government forest land worth crores of rupees. He has, therefore, filed the instant appeal upon permission being granted by this Court in larger public interest.

(2.) It is necessary to give brief background of the case.

(3.) One Raja Laxman Singh the original owner of 85.10 bighas of land situate at Mauza Jandrighat Bhatyat (now Chuwari) expired on 20.5.1971. His properties were inherited by one Raja Prem Singh and after coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, the said land vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Brijender Singh got married to Respondent No. 1 in 1978. Between 1977 and 1978 revenue records were tampered with in connivance with the revenue officials and the names of the domestic servants of Brijender Singh namely Piar Singh, Arjun Singh, Bemi Ram, Narvada Devi, Nand Lal and Laxmi Devi were entered in revenue records as non-occupancy tenants in respect of 67.3 bighas of land. After protracted litigation the aforesaid persons were declared non-occupancy tenants of 67.3 bighas of land and proprietary rights in respect thereof were conferred upon them vide mutations attested on 23.6.1987 and 8.12.1987. Thereafter Brijender Singh is stated to have fabricated two Wills - one of Arjun Singh and other of Piar Singh. On the basis thereof Brijender Singh is stated to have got the land of Piar Singh and Arjun Singh mutated in his favour vide mutation dated 29.7.1994. The first Respondent is stated to have obtained three General Power of Attorneys on 29.1.1993 and 30.1.1993 from Narvada Devi, Nand Lal and Bemi Ram authorizing her to sell their land in favour of her husband Brijender Singh for consideration. On the basis of the said General Power of Attorneys the first Respondent is stated to have made two sales in favour of her husband Brijender Singh. Thus, in short, the allegation against the first Respondent and her husband Brijender Singh is that they conspired to get wrong entries made in the revenue records and to secure illegal orders regarding conferment of proprietary rights in favour of the servants of Brijender Singh who finally managed to become owner of the said land. This was done by using forged Power of Attorneys and fictitious Wills with connivance of Revenue Officials.