IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No 1091 of 2024. Reserved on: 06.12.2024.

Date of Decision: 20.12.2024.

Suresh Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 12 of 2009, dated 28.10.2009, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Kullu along with Corruption case No.1 of 2021 pending before learned Special Judge Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. arising out of the FIR.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

. 2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present petition are that a complaint was received in the Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kullu, stating that a mutation of inheritance was attested in Patwar Circle Bhalyani Phati Brahamana on 09.06.1997 in the names of Rajinder Pal and Jagat Ram. One Khayali Ram had married Smt. Jumi Devi and Smt. Sainu Devi. Smt. Jumi Devi had three daughters and one son, Thakur Dass, whereas the second wife, Sainu Devi, had one daughter from her previous marriage. Khayali Ram’s wives succeeded to his estate after his death. Land measuring 3-16-0 bigha fell to the share of Sainu Devi. She executed a Will in favour of Rajinder Pal, a resident of Akhara Bazar Kullu and her grandson Sh. Jagat Ram in equal shares. Sainu Devi died on 14.12.1993. The Will was put up before Patwari, Patwar Circle Bhalyani on 09.06.1997. He entered the Will in the register of Mutation at Sl. No. 958. Entry No. 327 was recorded by the Patwari in his daily diary. A mutation no. 958 was attested on 31.10.1997 based on the Will. Subsequently, it was found while verifying the jamabandies for the years 2000-2001 that mutation No. 958 was wrongly attested in the name of Rajinder Pal, and his address was also wrongly mentioned. Rajinder Pal was not an agriculturist, and he was a resident of Noida (Uttar Pradesh). Rajinder Kumar succeeded in getting a certificate of agriculturists and purchased the land measuring 22 Bighas at Kasauli. The attestation of the mutation was a result of a conspiracy between Rajinder Pal, Patwari and other persons. The police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet. The learned Special Judge, Kullu, passed an order on 06.07.2013 holding that the charge sheet was pre-mature, and he returned the same to the Vigilance Department. The Vigilance Department conducted further investigation and submitted a charge sheet on 26.03.2021 against the petitioner and other accused.

3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the FIR and pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that mutation No. 958 was challenged by private parties before the revenue authorities. Learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the revision filed by Rajinder Pal on 17.12.2018 and held that there was no infirmity in the attestation of mutation No. 958. One of the co-accused, Rattan Bahadur Thapa, who was posted as Assistant Collector, 2^nd Grade, Kullu, and had attested the mutation No. 958, filed a petition, which was registered as Cr.MMO No. 568 of 2021 before this Court. This Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against him vide judgment dated 24.08.2024. No case was made out against the petitioner, and the Trial Court erred in summoning him based on the charge sheet submitted before it. There was no allegation in the FIR or the charge sheet that the petitioner had taken any money for the entry of the mutation. The petitioner had no