(Prayer: This Crl.P is filed U/S 483 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhitha, 2023 to allow this petition and direct the Respondent-Police to relaese the petitioners on bail in Crime No.98/2023 (on the file of Learned XLII ACJM Court at Bangalore) registered by Belur Police Station, now transferred to Cid, Bangalore, for the alleged offences p/u/S 464, 465, 468, 471, 409, 420 and 120b of IPC.)
CAV Order
1. The petitioners/accused Nos. 12 and 14 are before the Court seeking their enlargement on bail for it having been turned down by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6447 of 2026 arising out of Crime No.98 of 2023 registered by Belur Police and pending before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. Heard Shri Vikas M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor-1 appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
Petitioners are accused Nos.12 and 14. They were the members of Bagair Hukum Committee in one capacity or the other and were a part of larger picture of illegal grant of lands to several persons. Therefore, the petitioners for the purpose of interrogation have now been taken into custody. The facts that led these petitioners into custody are akin to that of accused No.1 who is now in custody. A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioners and several others who were members of the said Bagair Hukum Committee by registering a private complaint on the score that about 1,430 persons were the beneficiaries valued at about 750 crores in the constituency and the petitioners had bartered away the Government land close to 2750 acres. The said private complaint was referred for investigation to the jurisdictional Police as obtaining under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. This was challenged before this Court in Criminal Petition No.5030 of 2023 by about 10 accused in the said proceedings. This Court had initially directed not to precipitate the matter way back in the year 2023 and the said order was in subsistence till the matter stood disposed of on 13-09-2024. This Court by a detailed order rejected the petition that the Committee prima facie had acted contrary to law under the Chairmanship of accused No.1 - the Ex.MLA. With the dismissal of the petition, the apprehension of arrest of the petitioners loomed. The petitioners were then taken into custody for the purpose of investigation and now is in judicial custody. The petitioners seek enlargement on bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.6447 of 2026 before the concerned Court. The concerned Court rejects the same. In the light of the said rejection, the petitioners have knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel Sri Vikas M., appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioners are taken into custody after two years of dismissal of the criminal petition for the purpose of investigation. They were the Members no doubt, but 5 there were several other remedies available in law against the alleged action of the petitioners or the members of the Committee. Notwithstanding the same, the criminal law is set into motion. Setting the criminal law into motion has resulted in arrest of the petitioners. Therefore, there is no warrant of retaining the petitioners in custody, more so, in the light of the fact that all the documents have already been seized. He would submit that in another 2 or 3 days, the petitioners would become entitled to statutory bail itself as obtaining under Section 187 of the BNSS as the charge sheet is yet to be filed. The learned counsel on these grounds seek enlargement of petitioners on grant of bail.
5. Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor - 1 Sri B.N. Jagadeesha appearing for the State would vehemently refute the submissions contending that if the petitioners are let off on bail, they would undoubtedly indulge in tampering of documents, influencing the witnesses as being influential persons would undoubtedly yield such influence on the witnesses or officers who are holding the documents. In the teeth of grave allegations against the petitioners, the petitioners should not be released on 6 bail. He would further contend that elaborate statement of objections has been filed as to why there has been delay. He submits that the matter is transferred to the CID and the CID has taken up the investigation now owing to the enormity of the crime. Therefore, there has been certain delay in conduct and completion of investigation. That would not mean that the petitioners would be entitled to grant of bail. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The fulcrum of the lis lies in what is already held by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5030 of 2023 in which this Court has held as follows:
".... .... ....
8. The Samithi which is known as Bagair Hukum Saguvali Samithi was constituted for the purpose of regularization of lands by unauthorized occupants as obtaining under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Chairman of the Samithi was the 1st petitioner, a then sitting Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. In terms of the provisions of law, three members can be appointed to the Samithi. They were appointed by accused No.1. They are accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4; Accused Nos.5 to 7 10 are previous members of the Samithi and accused Nos.11 to 14 were Tahsildars working at the relevant point in time at Belur. The petitioners who have knocked at the doors of this Court are accused Nos.1 to 9. The Tahsildars are not before this Court. The Samithi assessed the applications submitted before it. There were 1430 applicants who wanted their unauthorized occupation to be regularized of about 2750 acres of Government lands as those applicants claimed that they were in unauthorized occupation of Government lands. The applicants are said to have given several documents in support of their claim. Those documents are alleged to be fictitious, fabricated and that they were never unauthorized occupants of Government lands. The lands are granted to those 1430 applicants ranging 2750 acres.
9. The smoke of illegality went up the air which led to an inquiry being conducted at the hands of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner directs the Tahsildar to submit a report after conduct of spot inspection of all the lands and verification of records. The Tahsildar conducts a spot inspection, draws up a report and submits the same to the Assistant Commissioner. The report of the Tahsildar reads as follows:
The analysis is that original form 53 application is not there in 99% of the files presented to the Samithi during the period from 2016 to 19 2022. The file processing is based on hand written ledger extract copy prepared by the Village Accountants and the Sheristedars. The Tahsildar's spot inspection is indicative of the fact that the lands granted are not even present in the files, no inspection took place and in some cases records are destroyed to evade proof and lands were granted on fake family genealogical certificates notarized and have been granted to fake beneficiaries. A chart is also indicated as illustration. Several of the files were not even put up before the Samithi. Decision was taken by the Chairman and in some grants made to the persons were on the score that they were holding unauthorized lands did not even belong to Belur Taluk. Based upon this, further proceedings are on. The detailed report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 14.10.2022, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, obtained by respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, reads as follows:
"No.L.N.438/2021-22 Date:14/10/2022
To,
The Deputy Commissioner,
Hassan District,
Karnataka
Subject: Inquiry of land grants done during 2016 to 2022 in Belur Taluk-reg.
Reference: 1. Letter No.LND (2)294/2019-20 dated: 19/12/2020 from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District.
2. Letter No. Athikramana: 12/202-21 dated 17/11/2020 from office of Tahsildar, Belur Taluk, Hassan District.
Respected Madam,
1. With reference to the subject cited above, the undersigned would like to bring to the notice of your kind authority the information regarding the Letter No. Athikramana: 12/2020-21 dated: 17/11/2020 from office of Tahsildar, Belur Taluk, Hassan District. (shown below)
2. In response to the Letter No. Athikramana: 12/2020-21 dated: 17/11/2020 from office of Tahsildar, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, the undersigned has received a letter vide Letter No. LND(2)294/2019-20 dated: 19/12/2020 from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District. (shown below)
In your letter vide Letter No. LND (2)294/2019-20 dated: 19/12/2020 from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, directions have been issued to the undersigned to identify the land the land grants of Belur Taluk which are made in violations of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and circulars of Government of Karnataka regarding land grant rules. Also the directions have been issued by your kind office to identify the officials involved in such unscrupulous land grants and send the report to your kind office.
3. As per the directions by your kind authority, the undersigned has inspected the 1430 land grants files of Belur Taluk pertaining to the years 2016 to 2022 The details of the land grants with the remarks of the undersigned are enclosed (Annexure-1).
4. The findings of the inspections are as mentioned below:
a. A total of 2750.86 Acres of Government land has been granted (Saguvali Chit given) by the 05 Tahsildars namely, Puttashetty B.S, Parmesh H.S, B.A. Jagadeesh, J Umesh and U.M. Mohan Kumar who had worked in Belur Taluk, Hassan District during 2016 to 2022. Out of the 2750.86 Acres Government land (Presumptive value Rs. 6,87,71,48,750.00 i.e. Rs. Six Hundred and Eighty Seven Crores, Seventy One Lakhs Forty Eight Thousands and Seven Fifty) granted, Khatha entries have been made for 2560.80 Acres (Presumptive value Rs. 6,40,20,05,000.00 i.e. Rs. Six Hundred and Forty Crores, Twenty Lakhs and Five Thousands). The details are enclosed (Annexure-2).
b. The 1430 inspected land grant files are categorized broadly into 03 colour codes which are Red, Yellow and Blue. The red category grant files are having major lapses in the grant procedure and also include illegal grants. The yellow category grants are having comparatively lesser lapses in the grant 21 procedure but still require a detailed verification of grant. The blue category grant files are the files in which the grant procedure has either been completed fully or partially but the Saguvali chits are yet to be issued.
d. The total acres of Government land granted by each Tahsidars along with The presumptive value of the Government land so granted are enclosed (Annexure-4)
e. For the Total acres of the Government land granted, Khata dorie by each ahsidars along with the presumptive value of the Government land granted are enclosed. (Annexure-5)
f. Total acres of Government land granted and its presumptive value Hobli wise and color code wise, granted by each Tahsildar is enclosed. (Annexures-6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
g. Total acres of Government land granted and Khata done, Hobli wise by each Tahsildar is enclosed (Annexures-12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19)
5. Analysis: 5.
a. Original Form 53 application is not there in 99% of the files presented in Bagar Hukum Committee during the period from 2016 to 2022 in Belur taluk. File processing is based on handwritten ledger extract copy prepared by village accountants and Office Shirestedars themselves.
b. Previous Committee proceedings are not verified regarding rejection of earlier applications. The original applications are not reviewed and file proceedings have started after about 15 to 18 years of receipt of the 23 applications. In many of the cases the applications already rejected by the previous committee are again taken up and approved.
c. Tahsildars spot inspection report for the land granted is not present in the files. Such spot inspections are ought to be done personally by the Tahsildars themselves or through their jurisdictional Deputy Tahsildars. In most of the files, Village Accountants have prepared sketches without any cross verification or approval by the concerned ADLR. This has led to the problem of grant of already previously granted land for which Phodi was not done, overlapping of sketches for the land grants proposed for more than one grantees and granting of land to ineligible persons.
Sum of Presumptive value of Government Land Granted (Rs. 25 lakh per acre inclusive Maramalki)
d. In some cases Original 56 register entries are destroyed to evade the proof whether the applications have been rejected previously. Based on the Fake/ Notarized Family Genealogical Tree certificates lands have been granted to 24 fake beneficiaries. Also previously rejected land grant applications are reconsidered after the applicant has portioned his property and transferred it to name of his relatives via registered partition deeds to show himself as eligible.
Sum of Presumptive value of Government Land Khata done after Grant (Rs. 25 lakh per acre inclusive of Maramalki)
e. Two Tahsildars Puttashetty B.S and Parmesh H.S have made 390 (i.e., total 893.57 Acres and Presumptive value of Government land Rs.2,23,39,25,000.00) and 653 (i.e., total 1245.03 Acres and Presumptive value of Government land Rs. 3,11,25,67,500.00) Government land grants respectively which comes out to be 75.36% (i.e. 1043 land grants) out of the total 1384 Saguvali chits issued from the Taluk Office Belur during 2016 to 2018. Many of these saguvali chits are issued with major lapses in the procedure or even without putting the applications in front of the Bagar Hukum Committee. Out of 390 government land grants made by Tahsildar Puttashetty B.S, 15 files are still pending for the Khata. Similarly out of 653 government land grants made by Tahsildar Parmesh H.S, 42 files are pending for the Khata.
f. In more than 99% of files there has been no consideration made with regard to the cattle population and sufficiency of the land reserved for cattle (Gomala) in the village, while making the land grants.
g. Land reserved for the Ex-service men, Hemavathi Reservoir Project and Yagachi Reservoir Project is also disposed illegally through Akrama Sakrama land grants.
h. After the first of the Unauthorised Cultivation Regularization Committee the form 54 is not published as per law in the Grama Chavadi for taking public objections to the grant proposals put for the consideration. The signatures made on the Form-54 are suspected to be fake as neither the name nor the father's name has been mentioned of the villagers who have signed on the form -54. In some cases even if the objections are placed against making the land grants in favour of persons who already have excess land holding, such objections are not duly considered by the Tahsildars while putting up the files for second meeting of the grants Unauthorised Cultivation Regularization Committee.
i. In some of the grants the person in whose favour the land has been granted does not belong to the Belur Taluk. Land has been granted to people whose residence is in Bangalore and other Districts except Hassan.
j. The file numbers have not been properly given for many of the grant files. The file numbers are changing in the revenue inspector report, Belur Taluk case worker report and the saguvali chit issue register for the same grant. In some of the files the grant processing has been initiated and done without even giving any file number to the file.
k. The Mara Malki has not been deducted to the Government treasury most of the land grants files inspected causing loss of revenue to the Government of Karnataka.
6. The details of all the files inspected along with the remarks are enclosed along with this letter. All the files for the 1430 land grants inspected by this office have been sealed off in three trunks in 29 bundles and handed over to the Record Room of Taluk Office Belur. One set of the record of the land grants files inspected is shared in the soft copy with the Taluk Office Belur for their office perusal. All the files have been duly scanned and the records have been burnt into 5 sets of 11 DVDs for the purpose of further perusal and investigation. (One such set is enclosed herewith). One set of the records of the 1430 land grants inspected is shared and placed in two systems in the soft copy with the Taluk Office Belur for their office perusal.
7. This is submitted for your kind consideration and necessary action please.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Prateek Bayal IAS)
Assistant Commissioner,
Sakleshpura Sub-Division,
Hassan District, Karnataka.
(Emphasis added)
The 2nd respondent/complainant then seeks to register a complaint before the jurisdictional Police on 24.01.2023. The complaint reads as follows:
This was not acted upon. Further, a complaint was also made to the Superintendent of Police. Therefore, Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. stood complied. Even then, no action was taken. It is then a complaint comes to be registered before the learned Magistrate. The complaint did contain excerpts of the report quoted hereinabove. Therefore, quoting the complaint would become unnecessary. The concerned Court, on the complaint, takes cognizance of the offence by a detailed order. The order reads as follows:
"11. Point No.1: The complainant is alleging that the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under section 468, 464, 465, 471, 409, 420 and 120(b) of IPC as averred in the complaint, which is narrated above. On perusal of the complaint averments and also the documents produced along with the complaint, it goes to show that the complainant has complied with the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava's Case. The complainant has lodged a complaint before the Jurisdictional Police Station, but no action was taken. The complainant has also lodged a compliant in this regard to the Higher Authorities also, but no action is taken in respect of the complaint lodged by the complainant. The complainant has also filed his affidavit stating that the averments made in the complaint are true and correct. As such, the complainant has filed this Private Complaint with the prayer of refer the complaint under 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation.
12. The complainant has produced documents in compliance of section 154 of Cr.P.C and also filed Affidavit in that regard. The complainant has sought to refer this case to the Jurisdictional Police for investigation. As such, at this pre-cognizance stage, bar under section 197 Cr.P.C., will not come into play And, this court is guided by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in Crl.P.No.5659/2021 between Abharam T.J., Vs. B.S. Yediyurappa, Dated: 07.09.2022. I feel this is a fit case to refer the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. As such, Point No.01 is answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
13. Point No.2: The counsel for the complainant has also pressed to pass necessary orders on the Second Prayer made in the complaint. The complainant has prayed to initiate action against the Police Inspector, Belur Police Station, Belur Taluk, Hassan District. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, i.e., Lalita Kumari Vs Government of U.P and Ors. I have gone through the said decision. This court is constituted as a Special Court to deal with the cases filed against the MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka. The Second Prayer sought in the complaint is an independent case in which any MPs/MLAs are not involved. The said prayer is sought to initiate action against the Police Officer who did not register the case based on the complaint lodged by the complainant before the Police Station. As such, this court will not get the jurisdiction to initiate any action against the said Police Officer in this case, as the same will be an independent case. If the complainant is aggrieved by the action of the said Police Officer and he may proceed against him separately before the Jurisdictional Court. Accordingly, I answer this Point No.2 in the NEGATIVE.
14. Point No.3: For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
This complaint is referred to SHO of Belur Police Station, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation."
Taking of cognizance and issuance of summons has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
10. If what is noticed/quoted hereinabove is considered, what would unmistakably emerge is, that persons who were not even from Belur Taluk and who had produced fake and bogus certificates, the Samithi has granted the lands or regularized those lands as the case would be. The report of the Tahsildar forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner and the detailed report of the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner all of which would unmistakably, albeit prima facie, lead to a conclusion that Government lands are illegally bartered away, as if they are the personal properties of members of the Samithi and the office is treated as their personal fiefdom. It is not one, 10 or 100 acres; the lands that are bartered away are 2750 acres which then valued at Rs.750/- crores. If the petition is entertained and proceedings are closed against the petitioners, it would be putting a premium on the illegality committed by the Chairman and Members of the Samithi and accepting bartering away of Government lands as if they are self-acquired private properties of the Chairman and members of the Samithi. This is sans countenance, by any canon of law. This matter would require investigation in the least, as it involves maze of facts. The issue regarding sanction of public servants need not be gone into, as no public servant is before the Court.
11. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2021) 9 SCC 35, wherein, it has been held as follows:
"9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10- 2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27- 10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."
(Emphasis supplied)
In view of the preceding analysis, I hold that Bagair Hukum Committee has acted Bagair Kanoon, albeit, prima facie.
12. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected."
This Court delineates as to how the petitioners and others were brought into the dragnet of crime. After the disposal of the petition on 13-09-2024, it appears examination of about 1200 files were necessary. The State submits that it has drawn up a format and in terms of the said format, the physical verification of the files is taking place. The format is as follows:
The action of the State cannot be found fault with as this Court had directed investigation into the entire episode on identification of 1200 beneficiaries/files all handled by Bagair Hukum Committee.
8. The issue now would be grant of bail. The petitioners are taken into custody about 40 days ago and remain in custody. The issue is the investigation is in progress and all the documents are admittedly seized and are in the custody of the CID. The custody of the petitioners would not be required for any further interrogation. In the case at hand all other accused have admittedly been granted bail. These two petitioners are few of the few who have been left out in the fray. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for grant of bail in the light of accused No.1 being granted bail. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the present petitioners on grant of bail imposing stringent conditions.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Petitioners are granted bail on the following conditions:
(a) The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
(b) The petitioners shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the Trial Court;
(c) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness(s) in any manner;
(d) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and submit all documents and details as may be called upon by the Investigating Officer;
(e) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission;
(f) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, this bail shall stand automatically cancelled.
The observations made above are only for the purpose of consideration of the application for bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The Trial Court shall consider the case on its merits and without being influenced by this order.
Registry is directed to communicate this order through electronic mail to the Jail Authorities, to enable them to release the petitioners from prison.
