Narendra Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

,

Virender Singh, J",

Being aggrieved by his prosecution under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 120B of IPC, the",

petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and all consequential subsequent,

proceedings of Special Case No.4/2015 pending before learned Special Judge (PC Act), Indore.",

It is the case of the prosecution that Mahavar Housing Cooperative Society Maryadit, Indore (hereinafter referred to as 'Mahavar Society')",

purchased a land bearing khasra No.1480 ad-measuring 13.28 acres from Princess Usha Trust through Secretary Shri V.G. Apte way back in the,

year 1966. A layout plan was submitted and sanctioned by Town & Country Planning vide order dated 05/12/1966 for 1 to 182 residential plots along,

with land earmarked for other purposes. Later on, in the year 1976, a revised layout plan was submitted before Joint Director, Town & Country",

Planning, Indore dividing all the plots into 2 parts and numbers 1/1 to 192/1 were given to newly carved out plots. Thus, in the revised plan, number of",

residential plots were doubled from the number of plots approved by original layout plan i.e. from 192 to 383 plots. This revised plan was approved by,

Town & Country Planning vide order dated 05/10/1978. In this revised plan, there was a red cross over 19 plots bearing No.183 to 192 and 183/1 to",

192/1. Out of these 19 plots, 3 owners applied to the Municipal Corporation for granting building permission to construct the houses which was granted",

by the petitioner.,

A complaint dated 14/12/2012 filed by the complainant Premchand Bindoria was submitted to the Economic Offence Wing (for short 'EOW'),

alleging that 19 plots were carved out on the land reserved for park and other community purposes and layout plan was not approved in respect of,

these 19 plots and this disapproval was marked as red cross over the revised layout plan submitted for approval. It was also alleged that without,

proper inquiry, the petitioner, who was then posted as Executive Engineer/Building Officer in the Indore Municipal Corporation, granted building",

permission to construct the house over plot No.188/2 and in this way, he misused his authority to obtain pecuniary advantages by corrupt or illegal",

means.,

The EOW investigated the case and finding some substance in the allegation made in the complaint filed the charge-sheet before the Special Court,

and the trial is pending.,

The petitioner has challenged his prosecution mainly on 2 grounds, first; at the time of alleged commission of the offence he was a public servant",

and for his prosecution, sanction of competent authority was sine qua non and in absence, his prosecution is illegal and second; prior to filing of the",

present charge-sheet against the petitioner by the Economic Offence Wing, Indore similar complaint was inquired by the Lokayukt and after a detailed",

inquiry and after seeking a report from a Committee comprising Joint Director Urban Administration and Development Department, Bhopal Shri S. K.",

Dubey, Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Indore Shri Devendra Singh and Superintending Engineer, Urban Administration and",

Development Department, Bhopal Shri L. S. Bhaghel, the same was closed, therefore, for the same allegation, second charge-sheet cannot be filed by",

the Economic Offence Wing and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the same.,

As far as first contention of the petitioner is concerned, the Trial Court has observed that at the time of taking cognizance, the petitioner was not",

holding the same post which was allegedly misused by him and in view of the judgment passed by L. Narayan Swami Versus State of Karnataka and,

others reported in (2016) 9 SCC 598 in Criminal Appeal Nos.721 and 722 of 2016 prosecution sanction was not required.,

As far as second contention of the petitioner is concerned, inquiry report of the committee comprising Joint Director, Urban Administration,",

Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Superintending Engineer, Urban Administration and Development Department, Bhopal is filed by the",

Lokayukt. It would be appropriate to go through the report of the committee in its original. Report of the committee is as follows:-,

,

 :,

,

: - 171/15 ,",

.. ,

, , ",

3873 14.03.2016 3902 15.03.16 ,

01.04.2016 ( ), ",

, ,",

,

, ",

, , , ",

3562 11.05.2016 ( -01) ,

, / 9130 05.10.78 ( -2) ",

/ , , ",

-2016 28.09.2016 ,

/,

:-,

,

.. , ( ) ",

, 1480 13.28",

,

- 05.12.1966 ( -03) ,

, 1 182 , -",

,

- 05.12.1966 1 192 (1/1 ,

192/1 383 ) - , , ",

- ( -04),

05.10.1978 ( -02),

,

- (2),

1 192 (1/1 192/1,

(1) (13.28 )",

5,78,500.00

.

(2) ( 1 192)",

3,06,253.00

(3) (30 40 )",

1,40,350.00

4) ( ,

)",

79,632.00

◌ ,

(i) -78 89 2011-12 ,

, () ",

◌ -100 108 ,

2011-12 367 385 183/1 192/1 ( - ,

) ,

,

, ",

,

(ii) , 181/1, 188/2 183/1 ",

-88 -363, 367 378 ",

1/4/92, 23/11/92 29/3/2001 ",

, ",

.. ,

, 1956 135 159 , ",

,

/ ,

19 ,

132 159 ,

,",

,

-88 -367, 368, 369, 371, 372, 377 378 ",

, ",

,

308 ,

,

, ",

,

,

Thus, report of officials, who were expert in the field shows that there was no change in the revised plan in the total area of land, land earmarked",

for residential plots, road, open land earmarked for park, school, community hall etc and there is no remark in respect of red cross imposed on the",

revised plan over plot No.183 to 192 and 183/1 to 192/1, which shows that authenticity of this red cross is seriously doubtful. As the layout was",

sanctioned by Town & Country Planning for residential purposes and the building permission was granted as per the sanctioned layout plan, therefore,",

no fault can be attributed to the present petitioner, who was working as Executive Engineer/Building Officer at the relevant point of time.",

Authenticity of this inquiry report and the fact that after receiving this report, the Lokayukt has closed the matter much prior to the complaint",

registered, enquired and investigated by the EOW and more importantly, the fact mentioned in the report of the committee constituted on the",

instigation of the Lokayukt have not been controverted by the respondents. No fact, other than the facts mentioned in the enquiry report of the",

committee constituted as aforesaid, constituting necessary element to constitute any offence as alleged against the present petitioner could be pointed",

out by the learned counsel representing the respondent. Documents, whose authenticity or veracity cannot be doubted and in fact is not doubted rather",

admitted, they can be very well relied upon.",

The power under section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and it is settled proposition of law that this power has to be exercised sparingly,

and only in the cases where attaining facts and circumstances satisfy that possibilities of miscarriage of justice will arise in case of non-use of power.,

The Court can interfere in such exceptional cases where it appears from the face of the record that the prosecution is totally unwarranted for. There,

has to be a material error manifest from the record that results in miscarriage of justice. At this stage sifting and weighing of the evidence is neither,

permitted nor expected and the Court need not enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and materials at this stage.,

Ex-consequenti, the petition stands allowed. Crime No.86/2012 registered at Economic Offence Wing, Indore under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of",

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 120B of IPC and all subsequent proceedings taken there-under particularly the proceedings",

of Special Case No.4/2015 pending before learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Indore are hereby quashed qua the petitioner Narendra Singh Tomar.",

The petitioner is acquitted from the charge under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 120B of",

IPC. His bail bond stands discharged.,