Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: - As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions arising out of the same impugned orders, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the relevant facts and Annexures are mentioned from CRM No.M-12751 of 2005 titled as “Ramesh Kumar Vohra Vs. State of Haryana” in subsequent portion of this judgment for ready reference in this context.

2. The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the records (judgment Annexure P20), is that the industrial plot, bearing No.28, situated in Industrial Area Phase-1, Urban Estate, Panchkula, was initially allotted to Ved Parkash Kakria, through the medium of allotment letter dated 8.10.1973 (Annexure P1). He was stated to have sold the same to complainant Suresh Kumar Bajaj son of Avinash Bajaj and received the consideration amount, by way of agreement to sell dated 24.4.1980. The allottee also executed the general power of attorney and Will in his (proposed vendee) favour. Avinash Bajaj, father of the complainant and attorney of original allottee, wrote a letter dated 30.10.1991 (Annexure P9), requesting the Estate Officer (for short “the EO”), Haryana Urban Development Authority (for brevity “the HUDA”), to transfer the plot in the name of the complainant. He again written a letter dated 25.11.1991 (Annexure P10), requesting the EO to transfer the plot in favour of complainant Suresh Kumar Bajaj, enclosing therewith the Will, affidavit and power of attorney. He has also deposited a sum of Rs.9200/- on 30.10.1991 in the account of CA, HUDA for transfer of the plot.

3. However, it was claimed by the complainant that petitioners Ramesh Kumar Vohra (EO), Daya Rani (Assistant) & Pitamber Parshotam (Superintendent), after accepting the illegal gratification and with the connivance of their other co-accused, fraudulently removed the documents and Will. Instead of transferring the plot in the name of complainant, they illegally transferred the same in the name of one Anil Kumar Kakria on 17.3.1992. It was alleged that in case, the will was not removed and allowed to remain on the file of transfer, the plot could not have been illegally transferred in the name of Anil Kumar Kakria.

4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that all the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, committed theft, removed the Will etc. from the file of transfer of plot, causing dis-appearance of evidence of offence, misappropriated the amount and cheated complainant Suresh Kumar Bajaj causing undue loss to him. That being the position on record and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by means of FIR, bearing No.18 dated 2.8.1996 (Annexure P15), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 201, 381, 409, 120-B and 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Special Vigilance Bureau, Ambala, in the manner described hereinabove.

5. After completion of the investigation and collection of the evidence, the police submitted the final police report/challan in terms of section 173 Cr.PC (Annexure P16) against the petitioners-accused.

6. The civil suit, bearing No.846 dated 10.10.1992 for a decree of declaration filed by the complainant, in respect of the ownership of same plot, was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), by virtue of judgment & decree dated 22.1.2005 (Annexure P20). The appeal filed by him was dismissed as well, by Additional District Judge, through the medium of judgment & decree dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure P22). In the wake of dismissal of RSA, bearing No.1522 of 2006, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil), bearing No.15407 of 2006 is pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in which, order of status-qu