UTTAM CHAND THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code"), has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R No. 8/2012, dtd. 18/7/2012, under Sec. 4.5 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act 1983, registered with Anti Corruption, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Mandi, H.P.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that while the petitioner was posted as Sub­ Divisional Officer in Beas Valley Power Corporation Limited Uhal, Stage­III, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, a contract was awarded to one Sh. Vijay Kumar, Government Contractor, for the work of concreting of an existing road at Village Hattan from RD Point 0.0 to 350 meters, in two parts, i.e. on 17/11/2008 and 7/2/2009. The aforesaid work of concreting was under a scheme of Local Development Area Committee, being supervised by Beas Valley Power Corporation. The road was completed in the year 2010. However, in the year 2009, a complaint No. 670/2009 was filed by the villagers of Village Hattan that the Contractor had not used appropriate material for the work of laying concrete over the existing road. Consequently, investigation was conducted, but, nothing was found against the contractor and since the contractor had repaired the road twice to the satisfaction of villagers, the villagers filed an application for withdrawal of the complaint against him and the case was closed by the Vigilance.

(3.) On 18/7/2012, i.e. after about two years of laying concrete over the existing road, some of the villagers of Village Hattan, again lodged an FIR, i.e. FIR No. 8/2012, against the contractor, as well as the officials, who were In­charge during the said period. As per the petitioner, the said FIR was not in his knowledge, as he was posted in Bhutan under foreign services from 2011 to 2017. However, when the petitioner came back to India in the year, 2017, he came to know about the said FIR and as such, had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, wherein the respondents have made a statement that no case has been made against the petitioner as of now, hence, the bail application was decided accordingly.