MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of orders dated 21,01.2009 (P-13 and P-14) and F.I.R. No. 3 dated 20.01.2004 u/s. 419 /420 /465 /468 /471 /120-B IPC and Section 131(C) and (D) 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at P.S. Vigilance Bureau Ludhiana (P-1). The Vigilance Bureau, Punjab has lodged the above said F.I.R. on the allegations that a land about 1100 sq yards which falls in the Payal town was in the occupation of about 32 Scheduled Caste families and they were storing their fire wood etc and are preparing the dung cake and have rookies at this place. This land falls under the red line and it is not the ownership of anybody. To grab this land, Avinash Preet Singh made a scheme and under this scheme they got the entry by forging and fabricating the record of the Assessment Register of the Municipal Council, Payal in the name of his servant Mohinder Singh. On the basis of this entry, he got issued TS-1 of this place with the connivance of the Clerk and the office of the Municipal Council. Thereafter, Mohinder Singh executed a sale deed of 1100 sq. yards in the name of Parminder Singh and after the execution of the sale deed, the above said persons with connivance tried to get the possession of this valuable land. As per the assessment register, there is a house of Lachman Singh ward No. 11 Payal. It is at Sr. No. 1143. The allegation is that Mohan Singh, Assessment Scheme Clerk and Karnail Singh Clerk Municipal Committee Payal have misused their rights and post by fabricating the record and entered the name of Mohinder Singh in the Assessment Register at Sr. No. 1143. They have issued TS-1 certificate in the name of Mohinder Singh and on the basis of this TS-1 certificate, Mohinder Singh with the connivance of the Revenue Officers executed a sale deed in favour of Parminder Singh vide vasika No. 2343 13.01.2003 and before the registration of the sale deed, the revenue officials have not enquired about this land. In this background, the petitioners have committed a fraud.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of the above said F.I.R. on the ground that the entry regarding plot No. 1129 was recorded in the Assessment Register of the Municipal counsel at serial No. 1143 and this was recorded on 31.03.1985 and since then Mohinder Singh is in possession of this plot. Subsequently, Mohinder Singh moved an application to the Executive Officer, Municipal Council Payal on 18.12.2002 for the issuance of TS-1 certificate. This certificate was issued on 20.12.2002 by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council Payal (P-4). Annexure P-4 is the assessment house tax for the year 2002 in which Mohinder Singh has been shown to be the owner with reference to the property at Sr. No. 1129. The SDM Payal got enquired the matter and the Executive Officer after going through the records submitted a report to the SDM Payal that nothing has been fabricated. (P-5). The allegations in the F.I.R. is that plot No. 1129 belongs to one Lachhman Singh and name of Mohinder Singh has been entered by way of fabrication. However, perusal of the Assessment Register shows that nothing has been fabricated and plot No. of the co-accused is 1129 and Sr. No. 1143. It has further been wrongly mentioned that a cutting has been made in the plot of Lachman Singh. Whereas in the Assessment Register, where the plot of Lachman Singh is at Sr. No. 1139 and nothing has been fabricated (P-8). This entry is of 31.03.1985. The sale deed has been made by Mohinder Singh who executed the sale deed in favour of Parminder Singh. So, the petitioners are neither witness nor the beneficiary and in no way connected with the plot.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Vigilance Bureau had approached the MC for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioners which was refused by the Municipal Council vide resolution Nos. 398 and 565. Copies of the resolutions dated 30.08.2005 and 05.09.2007 are Annexures P-10 and P-11.