1. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate and Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned First Information Report No.032 dated 10.03.2017 under Sections 167, 218, 219, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B & 34 of I.P.C. registered at ROP SIDCUL, P.S. Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. Further prayer has been made in the writ petition for direction to respondent no.2 not to arrest and not to harass the petitioner in pursuance of First Information Report No.032 dated 10.03.2017 under Sections 167, 218, 219, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B & 34 of I.P.C. registered at ROP SIDCUL, P.S. Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. Initially, the matter was heard on 13.10.2017 and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following order was passed:-

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Admit.

Issue notice to respondent no.3 returnable at any early date, by registered post, acknowledgment due.

List this matter after three weeks alongwith WPCRL No. 806 of 2017. By that time, counter affidavits may be filed.

Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers available on record, it is directed that, till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with F.I.R No. 032 dated 10.03.2017, relating to offences punishable under Section 167, 218, 219, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B & 34 I.P.C., registered at R.O.P. SIIDCUL, P.S. Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, provided he cooperates with the investigating agency in the investigation of the case.

Stay application (CLMA No.13128 of 2017) stands disposed of.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself.”

4. Stay vacation application has been filed by the State. Alongwith the stay vacation application an affidavit has been filed by the Investigating Officer. Objection/affidavit to the affidavit filed in support of the stay vacation application has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where action is being taken at the behest of then Commissioner, Kumaon, who was personally biased against the petitioner. He submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR. He submitted that certain facts will make it clear that petitioner is not at all involved in the offence alleged. At the time of initiation of land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner was not Special Land Acquisition Officer but subsequently at the time of determination of compensation, he was posted as Special Land Acquisition Officer. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred Sections 51, 60 and 61 of the Right to Fare Compensation Act 2013 and submitted that whatever was done by the petitioner in the capacity of Special Land Acquisition Officer, same was done in exercise of his judicial power and no action can be taken against him for exercising his judicial power. Therefore, in pursuance to the FIR, he cannot be held responsible for exercising his judicial power. He further submitted that, infact, for the purpose of construction of road, the land of various tenure holders was acquired. The Sub Divisional Magistrate/Tehsildar of the area passed order under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act by declaring the said land as non-agricultural land. They exercised their power as Assistant Collector, 1st Class. Petitioner had nothing to do with declaration of land as non-agricultural land. He submitted that the petitioner determined the compensation at circle rate and, therefore, it cannot be said that he awarded compensation at exorbitantly higher rate. He further submitted that in arbitration proceedings, the compensation was further enhan