SHIV CHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner Shiv Charan who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 114 dated 15.07.2013, registered at Police Station, Ateli, District Mahendergarh. Learned counsel contends that a list of eligible candidates of BPL and APL categories for allotment of plots of 100 square yards was prepared in October, 2008, by the Gram Panchayat when the petitioner was Sarpanch and sent to the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, which was further approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 31.10.2008. The said list contained the names of 93 persons. He further submits that the petitioner relinquished the charge of the post of Sarpanch on 31.7.2010. The new Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 15.7.2011 that 93 persons as proposed by the Gram Panchayat during the chairmanship of the petitioner were also approved. He further submits that the complainant of the present case filed a civil suit on 23.7.2011 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.2.2013. It has also been contended that on 25.7.2011 an application was presented before the Deputy Commissioner for conducting an inquiry. Learned counsel also submits that the names recommended by the Gram Panchayat during the tenure of the petitioner as Sarpanch, were approved by the Deputy Commissioner and the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, therefore, no offence was committed by him. He further submits that the complaint filed by the complainants, namely, Shakti Singh and Sat Pal, was not maintainable in law, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, had no jurisdiction under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., to order for registration of the case. He further submits that there was huge delay of more than five years in registration of the present FIR. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the ratio of the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Narayanaswami and others v. Egappa Reddi and others, : AIR 1962 Madras 443. He further contends that in compliance of the order dated 12.08.2013, the petitioner has joined the investigation and fully co -operated with the Investigating Agency. He also contends that the petitioner has also given his specimen signatures to the Investigating Officer in the presence of the learned Area Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ranbir Singh, Police Station, Ateli, District Mahendergarh, very fairly concedes that the petitioner has joined the investigation and no more required for custodial interrogation in the present case. He also concedes that the petitioner has given his specimen signatures to the Investigating Officer in the presence of the learned Area Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.