DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.61 dated 8.6.2009 under Section 81 of the Registration Act, 1908 ; Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that Gurmeet Singh and others had purchased land after the same had been acquired by Hayana Urban Development Authority (HUDA for short). Petitioner, who was working as a patwari at the relevant time, had issued a copy of the jamabandi but had failed to enter the report No.930 dated 20.3.2008 with regard to announcement of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. During investigation, it had transpired that the purchaser and the seller had no knowledge about the acquisition of the land and on coming to know about the acquisition of land, they had cancelled the sale deed. Further during investigation, it transpired that there was no allegation against the petitioner of taking any bribe or criminal conspiracy. Hence, he was found innocent during investigation. However, despite the said investigation report, the FIR was not cancelled.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR qua the purchasers had already been quashed by this Court vide CRM-M No. 32197 of 2011 (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was on sanctioned leave w.e.f. 12.6.2008 to 21.6.2008 and hence, he could not have issued the copy of the jamabandi in question. Rather the same must have been issued by some other patwari.