The subsequent FIR covered different incidents and wider scope than the earlier FIR, and the petitioners failed to establish political vendetta.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.73 dated 18.7.2022 (Annexure P-7) registered under Sections 379, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 21(1) and 4(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation) of Development Act, 1957 and Section 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 at Police Station Rahon District S.B.S. Nagar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom with further prayer that during the pendency of the present petition no coercive action be taken against the petitioners.

2. The challenge to the impugned FIR has been laid by the petitioners on the ground that earlier also FIR No.26 dated 7th March, 2018 was registered under Sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 21(1) and 4(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation) of Development Act, 1957 (Annexure P-1) with regard to the same subject matter was registered against petitioner No.1-Kudratdeep Singh and 25 other persons.

3. Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuri, Senior DAG, Punjab and Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State, they having advance notice of the present petition.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

5. The learned senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered against 26 persons including the petitioner No.1. That petitioner No.2 was not named as accused in the said FIR. The Senior counsel for the petitioners further submitted that FIR (Annexure P-1) was relating to illegal sand mining in six sand mines in the area of SBS Nagar. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per allegations in the said FIR, a team of mining department and civil administration inspected the said mines on 6th March, 2018 and at that time, it was found that certain persons were doing illegal mining and several machines and vehicles like poclain machines, JCBs, trucks and tippers were seized by the said team at the spot. That as per the allegations in the FIR (Annexure P-1) three forged weighment slips were also recovered at the spot and consequently the aforesaid FIR was registered against petitioner No.1 and 25 other persons on the basis of the aforementioned spot inspection.

6. The senior counsel for the petitioners further contended that it was also alleged in the FIR that petitioner No.1 was allotted Malikpur mining site through an e-auction conducted by the mining department on 25.5.2017.

7. The senior counsel for the petitioners further contended that as per the allegations in the FIR (Annexure P-1), petitioner No.1 indulged in illegal mining for the period from 4.10.2017 till 7.3.2018. The Senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during the investigation of the said FIR (Annexure P-1), petitioner No.1 gave a representation regarding his innocence to the police authorities and the matter was inquired into by Superintendent of Police (Investigation) SBS Nagar. During the said inquiry, the statements of all the concerned persons were recorded and finally the aforesaid police officer gave his report dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure P-2) whereby petitioner No.1 was found to be innocent and accordingly he was not challaned in FIR (Annexure P-1). The senior counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the said case, petitioner No.1 was granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar vide order dated 5.4.2018, whose copy is taken on record.

8. The senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner No.2 was not nominated as accused in the FIR (Annexure P-1) by the police. The senior counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on completion of investigation, the police presented challan in FIR (Annexure P-1) against 56 persons, while petitioner No.1 was placed in column No.2 of the said challan.

9. The senior counsel for the petitioners further contended that petitioner No.2 is neph