NARENDRA SINGH RANA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.K. Misra Thelearned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. S. Hajela, learned counsel for the C.B.I, and Sri Surendra Singh, learned A. G. A.-I and also perused the materials on record.

(2.) This petition has been brought for quashing the written report registered at Case Crime No. 332/05 under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 13(1D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at P. S. Garh Mukteshwar, Ghaziabad. Simultaneously the liberty of the petitioner by way of staying his arrest is desired to be protected. It is said that the petitioner is the senior IPS officer and presently working as Joint Commissioner of Police (P & I), Police Headquarters, New Delhi and has falsely been roped into the above offences so as to harass and harm his reputation. His father late Brig. Tej Singh (Retd.), who was decorated with Vishistha Sewa Medal, set up a family charitable trust known as 'Sri Ganga Sanatan Dharmarth Trust' (the Trust) of which the petitioner is one of the trustees. The petitioner in the capacity of the trustee moved an application to Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) on 6-3-2003 inviting his attention for incorrect entries in the revenue records showing certain properties in the name of trust. He also made representation on 15-5-2003 to the Tehsildar for the removal of those wrong entries. Not only this on 7-4-2004 he made representation to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut bringing all these facts into his notice that 26 Bighas of land of Village Kotla Khadar has wrongly been entered into the name of his trust. Emphasis has also been laid that the petitioner himself was making all possible efforts for the correction of the entries in the revenue record but instead of appreciating his conduct this report was registered at Case Crime No. 332/ 05 under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 13(1D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at P. S. Garh Mukteshwar, Ghaziabad attributing false allegations against him for being instrumental in getting fake and forged entries in the revenue record in the name of certain Pattedar and then to have got transferred of those properties on the basis of sale deed. It is further said that the proceedings for the expunction of the forged entries in the revenue records ought to have been drawn in exercise of powers under Section 120-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (the Act) but so far no such proceedings appear to have been initiated against the petitioner. It is also said that the petitioner on the basis of those so-called forged entries or on suspicion cannot be held criminally liable. Reliance has also been placed on the principle of law laid down in the case of Jogendra Singh v. State of U.P., 1994 (31) ACC 431.

(3.) This petition has been resisted by Surendra Singh, learned A. G. A.-I and Sri G. S. Hajela, learned counsel for the C.B.I. Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. contended that after making an Inquiry with regard to the forged and fraudulent entries in the revenue record, report was registered at the police station and that would itself make out prima facie case for the offences indicated above against the petitioner and further this Court is not required to embark upon an inquiry with regard to the credibility of the allegations made in the report.