Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia and Prakash Chandra Gupta, JJ.
Mukesh Ranka v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No. 6969 of 2023, 42380 of 2023, 49108 of 2023 and 57759 of 2023 and Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2024 (Indore); Decided on 22.10.2024
Ajay Bagadia with Shashank Sharma, Madhur Sharma, Mangesh Bhachawat, Amol Shrivastava, for respective applicants/respondents; Vaibhav Jain for respondent/SPE.
Headnote:
(1) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 482 and 397/401 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Ss. 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(2) -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 120B -- quashing of FIR -- wrong permission granted by any authority of local body cannot be treated as criminal misconduct if there is no element of bribery or undue benefits between parties -- building permissions granted in favour of company have been upheld by civil Court -- no allegation and material that applicants abused their position or obtained any pecuniary advantage from directors of company to grant building permission -- no material to establish criminal conspiracy -- only allegation is that while granting building permission, master plan was ignored and use of land was changed from residential to commercial, for which director of T&CP is competent authority, not Municipal Corporation -- held -- this could be illegality or violation of provisions of Act and rules, but it is not criminal misconduct -- every authority or quasi-judicial authority passes order and if order is illegal or wrongly passed, it is liable to be set aside by higher authority or Court -- authority who passed such order cannot be prosecuted for criminal misconduct under provisions of PC Act -- FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed. (2013) 1 SCC 205, (2009) 8 SCC 617, AIR 2022 SC 3050 and AIR 1963 SC 1116 followed. [Paras 24, 25, 27, 30 & 32]
(2) Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 -- S. 20 -- Lokayukt did not conduct any enquiry but got it conducted by Legal Advisor -- Legal Advisors are posted in Lokayukt Establishment only to give legal advice -- they are not supposed to conduct any enquiry as Enquiry Officer because their report sometimes becomes basis of charge-sheet -- Lokayukt can take services of any other prosecution agency for conducting enquiry but not of judicial officers posted to give legal opinions -- such practice violates norms of judicial independence and doctrine of separation of powers. [Para 32]
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 rFkk 397@401 & Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 13¼1½¼d½] 13¼1½¼[k½ rFkk 13¼2½ & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 120[k & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu & fj'or dk ;k i{kdkjksa ds e/; vlE;d~ Qk;nksa dk rRo ugha gks rks fdlh Hkh LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk çnku dh xbZ xyr vuqefr dks vkijkf/kd vopkj ugha ekuk tk ldrk & daiuh ds i{k esa çnku dh xbZ fuekZ.k vuqefr;ksa dks flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk ekU; Bgjk;k x;k gS & ,slk dksbZ vfHkdFku vkSj lkexzh ugha fd vkosndx.k us vius in dk nq:i;ksx fd;k ;k fuekZ.k vuqefr çnku djus ds fy, daiuh ds funs'kdksa ls dksbZ /kuh; ykHk vfHkçkIr fd;k & vkijkf/kd "kM~;a= LFkkfir djus ds fy, dksbZ lkexzh ugha & ,dek= vfHkdFku ;g gS fd fuekZ.k vuqefr çnku djrs le; ekLVj Iyku dh mis{kk dh xbZ rFkk Hkwfe dk mi;ksx vkoklh; ls ifjofrZr dj okf.kfT;d dj fn;k x;k] ftlds fy, uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k dk funs'kd l{ke çkf/kdkjh gS] uxjikfyd fuxe ugha & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;g voS/krk ;k vf/kfu;e vkSj fu;eksa dk vfrØe.k gks ldrk gS ijarq ;g vkijkf/kd vopkj ugha & çR;sd çkf/kdkjh ;k U;kf;ddYi çkf/kdkjh vkns'k ikfjr djrk gS rFkk ;fn vkns'k voS/k gS ;k xyr ikfjr fd;k x;k gS rks og mPprj çkf/kdkjh ;k U;k;ky; }kjk vikLr fd;k tk ldrk gS & ftl çkf/kdkjh us og vkns'k ikfjr fd;k mls Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vfèkfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu vkijkf/kd vopkj ds fy, vfHk;ksftr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vkSj leLr ikfj.kkfed dk;Zokfg;ka vfHk[kafMrA ¼2013½ 1 ,llhlh 205] ¼2009½ 8 ,llhlh 617] ,vkbvkj 2022 ,llh 3050 rFkk ,vkbvkj 1963 ,llh 1116 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 24] 25] 27] 30 ,oa 32½
¼2½ yksdiky vkSj yksdk;qä vf/kfu;e] 2013 & /kkjk 20 & yksdk;qä us dksbZ tkap ugha dh cfYd fof/kd lykgdkj ls djokbZ & yksdk;qä LFkkiuk esa fof/kd lykgdkj dsoy fof/kd lykg nsus ds fy, inLFk fd, tkrs gSa & muds }kjk tkap vf/kdkjh ds :i esa dksbZ tkap ugha dh tkuk gksrh D;ksafd mudk çfrosnu dHkh&dHkh vkjksii= dk vk/kkj cu tkrk gS & yksdk;qä tkap djus ds fy, fdlh vU; vfHk;kstu vfHkdj.k dh lsok ys ldrk gS ijarq fof/kd jk; nsus ds fy, inLFk fd, x, U;kf;d vf/kdkfj;ksa dh ugha & ,slh çFkk ls U;kf;d Lora=rk ds ekudksa dk rFkk 'kfä;ksa ds i`FkDdj.k ds fl)kar dk vfrØe.k gksrk gSA ¼iSjk 32½
ORDER
Rusia, J. --1. All the Applicants have filed all these M.Cr.Cs and Criminal Revision for quashment of FIR No.43/2021 registered under sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “PC Act”) and section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) at Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Ujjain (M.P.) and the subsequent proceedings taken place after registration of the aforesaid FIR.
I. Facts of M.Cr.C. No.6969 of 2023 [Mukesh Ranka Versus The State of M.P.] are as follows :
2. R.M. Vino Estate Developers is a private limited company registered under provisions of the Companies Act engaged in the construction and development of land (hereinafter referred to as “the company”). Late Shri Sushil Jain and present applicant Mukesh Ranka were the directors of the company. The company purchased land situated at 40, Vishwavidyalaya Marg, Ujjain vide registered sale deed dated 16.9.2010 from 27 co-owners of the land. After registration of the sale deed, the possession was handed over thereafter, the company applied for mutation of its name and started paying the municipal taxes. The name of the company was mutated in the record of Ujjain Municipal Corporation (in short “UMC”) in the year 2011.
3. After the expiry of 3 years, respondent No.2, namely Divya Singh Jadon daughter of Prayag Singh Jadon claimed herself to be a coowner of the land in question being a member of the family of 27 coowners has filed a Civil Suit No.58-A/2013 claiming a share of 600 Sq.ft. Land out of the total 30,000 sq. ft. of the land. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) was also filed. Initially, vide order dated 27.9.2013, the learned civil Court directed to preserve 600 Sq.ft. of the land by way of interim injunction. The interim protection was granted only for one year which has never been extended thereafter. Vide order dated 27.9.2013, the company was directed to produce the sanctioned map and the building permission and till then restrained from raising any construction on the land claimed by the plaintiff. Respondent No.2 also filed an application under section 151 of the CPC for making the previous injunction order absolute, but vide order dated 30.7.2014, the same was rejected.
4. Late Sushil Jain being a director of the company applied for building permission for the construction of a building on the land in question from Ujjain Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the UMC). The UMC vide order dated 14.5.2019 approved the map and granted building permission for commercial and residential comprising the basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. According to the applicant, Late Sushil Jain filed an affidavit as well as an indemnity bond on behalf of the company before the UMC.
5. Respondent No.2 Divya Singh Jadon submitted a complaint on 1.6.2022 to the Commissioner UMC which was rejected on 26.6.2020, meanwhile she also submitted a complaint to the Lokayukta of the State of M.P. that the building permission has illegally been granted by the Commissioner UMC. The company also applied online application for issuance of revised building permission along with the revised plan and the same was accepted by the Corporation vide letter dated 14.7.2020.
6. The UMC issued a show-cause notice dated 24.10.2020 under section 299 of the Municipal Corporation Act for revocation of the building permission. The company submitted a reply and thereafter filed a Civil Suit No.8-A/2021. Vide order dated 25.1.2021, the learned civil Court granted an interim injunction in favour of the company. Against the said temporary injunction, the UMC as well as respondent No.2 both preferred Miscellaneous Appeals No.20/2021 and 21/2021 respectively. The learned appellate Court vide order dated 8.7.2021 dismissed both the appeals which has resulted in confirmation of the order of temporary injunction.
7. The compla
