SANDEEP SHARMA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine shall dispose of two cases bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. M-6615 of 2018 and 7084 of 2018 as the facts and question of law involved in both the cases are the same. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from Crl. Misc. No. M-6615 of 2018.

(2.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing of FIR No. RCCHG2007A0003 dtd. 20/2/2007 registered under Sec. 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec. 420 read with Sec. 120-B IPC at Police Station CBI, ACB, Chandigarh along with all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the initial stage, the petitioner was not made as an accused and was involved in the present case after a period of two years that too in the final report filed under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. There are allegations of conspiracy with the main accused-Kewal Singh Dhillon, Tajinder Pal Singh, who were named in the FIR. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was made accused along with Atul Goel, Brij Mohan (since deceased) and Arun Lumba, who were named subsequently in the final report filed under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. The allegations against the petitioner are of conspiracy and of causing wrongful loss to Chandigarh Administration by not charging the conversion/composition/compounding fee by suppressing serious violations of Building Laws, sanctioning proposed building plan and granting occupation certificate to accused-Kewal Singh Dhillon. Learned counsel also contends that aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings have already been quashed by this Court vide judgments dtd. 22/12/2017 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-5486 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No. M-18446 of 2010 titled as Atul Goel Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh and another and Tejinder Pal Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh, respectively as well as vide judgment dtd. 31/3/2010 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-2746 of 2010 titled as Kewal Singh Dhillon Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. It is also the argument of learned counsel that the case of the petitioner is on better footings vis-a-viz co- accused against whom FIR has already been quashed. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that earlier in the aforesaid cases, FIR and other consequential proceedings were quashed but subsequently an application was moved by respondent-CBI seeking clarification as to whether the FIR and other proceedings were quashed qua to the petitioners only or qua to all the accused, wherein, an order was passed clarifying that the FIR and all consequential proceedings have been quashed qua to petitioners only who have filed the petitions for quashing and not of all the accused. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that neither any financial loss has been caused nor any evidence has been collected to prove the conspiracy. The petitioner has already suffered for a period of more than eleven years and continuation of the proceedings would be futile exercise as the FIR qua to other co-accused has already been quashed.