Cri. M. M. O. No. 6 of 2014. Case: Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association Vs State of Himachal Pradesh. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | Cri. M. M. O. No. 6 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Counsel, Ms. Abhinav Mukerji, Parshotam Chaudhry, Vikrant Thakur, Advs. and For Respondents: Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, Anup Rattan, Romesh Verma, V. S. Chauhan, Addl. Advocate General, Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate General |
| Judges | Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Actg. C.J. |
| Issue | Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Section 482 |
| Citation | 2014 CriLJ 4294 |
| Judgement Date | April 25, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
1. By the medium of this petition, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") for quashing FIR No. 12 of 2013, dated 1st August, 2013, registered at Police Station Dharam-shala, under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act"), on the grounds taken in the memo of petition.
2. This petition came up for consideration before one of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court on 7th January, 2014 and was deferred with the observation that the case be listed before another Bench subject to the orders of the Chief Justice. Thereafter, the petition came up for consideration before another Bench on 9th January, 2014 and was adjourned with liberty to make a mention before the learned Vacation Judge. On 24th January, 2014, the learned Vacation Judge asked the petitioners to seek appropriate orders from the Chief Justice qua listing being the pending matter. It appears that this order was questioned by the petitioners before the Apex Court and the Apex Court, after hearing the parties, passed the following order:
"The substance of the matters is that an application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 482, CrPC could not be heard by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for various reasons including that two of the Hon'ble Judges declined to hear the matter. Therefore, there is a prayer in T. P. (Crl.) No. 42 of 2014 to transfer the Cr.MMO No. 6/2014 titled as "Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to request the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to take up the Cr.MMO No. 6/2014 himself and dispose of the same expeditiously.
The parties are at liberty to mention the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court. In view of the above observations, the special leave petition and transfer petition stands disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the special leave petition and transfer petition, no order is required to be passed by this court in I.A. No. 3971/2014 in T.P. (Crl.) No. 42 of 2014 and CrlMP No. 3937/2014 in SLP (Crl.) No. 963/2014".
3. In terms of the orders of the Apex Court, after hearing the parties, I was asked to hear the petition and no relief was granted in miscellaneous petitions. The matter came up before this Court on 4th March, 2014, the matter was partly heard with a direction to the respondents to file latest status of investigation, which was filed by the learned Advocate General. The matter was heard on 7th April, 2014, and was reserved for judgment.
4. The petitioners have questioned the lodging of FIR on the following grounds:
1. That it is purely a civil dispute outcome of civil liability and civil suit is pending in this Court.
2. That the petitioners have not violated any law, the leases were executed by the State in favour of the petitioners and the State is still the owner. And if the petitioners have acted in violation of the terms and conditions of the lease, that may be ground for cancellation of the lease(s) and not for lodging an FIR subjecting the petitioners and other persons to investigation and to face criminal trial.
3. That no mens rea is involved, thus, no criminal case is made out.
4. That the Cricket Association was 'a not for profit society' and was not converted into company with ulterior motives. Thus, the question of wrongful loss or wrongful gain does not arise at all.
5. That the entire case is politically motivated, based on Congress charge-sheet, the investigation is monitored by the Chief Minister-respondent No. 2 and Special Investigation Team has been asked to submit the report to the Chief Minister-respondent No. 2, thereby the lodging of the FIR and conducting of investigation at the behest of the Chief Minister-respondent No. 2 is based on mala fides.
6. That the entire exercise is just to take over the control of the Cricket Association.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while addressing arguments, also argued that the persons allegedly to be involved in the commission of offences are private persons, thus, provisions of PC Act are not applicable, is just to harass the petitioners. He further submitted that the Congress President has publicly asked petitioner No. 2-Anurag Thakur to mend himself and resultantly all the cases will be withdrawn, including the FIR in hand. The civil proceedings are already pending before this Court and the same subject matter is under investigation. This Court has already granted status quo ante, which is in force, as on today. Respondent No. 2 has also filed a civil suit for Damages against petitioner No. 2 and other persons, which is also pending before a Civil Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that respondent No. 2 had visited the premises of petitioner No. 1 and had made an entry in the visitors' book with a word of appreciation. All the documents have been prepared as per the rules and regulations occupying the field. No demand certificates have been issued by the competent Authorities. The petitioners have complied with all the terms and conditions applicable and have not committed any breach. The first lease, second lease and even the supplement lease were made after due approval of the Competent Authority. The case, i.e. FIR, is outcome of political vendetta and prayed that the FIR be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that no notice has been issued so far and the stand of the respondents is not known. He has prayed that notice be issued and respondents be asked to file reply enabling the petitioners to meet out the defence of the respondents and further prayed that till reply is filed, investigation be stayed.
8. While spelling out his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon the various judgments including State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others, reported in (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 561: (AIR 1982 SC 949: 1982 Cri LJ 819); Union of India and others v. Sushil Kumar Modi and others, reported in (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 770: (AIR 1997 SC 1672: 1997 Cri LJ 1168); National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others,
reported in (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases
407: (AIR 2009 SC 1284: 2009 Cri LJ 1299); Dalco Engineering Private Limited v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye and others, reported in (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 378: (AIR 2010 SC 1576); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rita Mechanical Works, reported in (2012) 344 ITR 544 (PandH) and GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited, reported in (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 505: (AIR 2013 SC 1433: 2013 Cri LJ 2044).
9. Learned Advocate General, while rebutting the arguments, argued that the FIR was lodged, which was made in terms of a complaint and the investigating agency, while conducting the investigation, came to the conclusion that eighteen persons are, prima facie, found to have been involved in the commission of offences punishable under various provisions of IPC and PC Act.
10. Learned Advocate General, while advancing arguments, has argued that all the documents, No Objection Certificates and other certificates were obtained fraudulently and with a criminal intention. Further argued that conversion of the said society to a company is with ulterior motives just to cause wrongful gain to the petitioners and wrongful loss to the State. Even the land has been acquired fraudulently, by deception and illegal means and thus, the accused have committed criminal breach of trust. Further argued that they are not only involved in the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, IPC, i.e. criminal breach of trust and misappropriation, but are also involved in cheating and commission of other offences because they have obtained documents by deceitful means and managed lease deeds and other documents fraudulently.
11. Learned Advocate General further argued that a false affidavit was tendered to obtain a completion certificate of the Club House and the other constructions. The officers of Municipal Committee and other officers have misused their official position. The officers, whose names have figured in investigation, have prepared false reports by misusing their official position in order to cause wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to the petitioners and other accused.
12. Respondents have submitted a status report in terms of the court directions, which contains details of the investigation conducted. It contains the allegations how the officers are involved, how petitioner No. 2 and other persons played their illegal acts and activities, managed the documents and other certificates. It is also stated in the status report that Shri R. S. Gupta, the then Deputy Commissioner, has categorically prepared a report ignoring the report of Divisional Forest Officer, who had assessed value of the trees as 50 lacs at that point of time, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association.
13. The report further discloses that Shri Deepak Shanan, the then Revenue Secretary, provided a helping hand to the alleged accused for granting permission to set up and run a commercial hotel and the matter was not taken to the Cabinet, which was in violation of Schedule 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Rules of Business. The report also contains how Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association Society was merged into a company just to prevent the State Government from controlling it.
14. The conspiracy was hatched not only by petitioner No. 2, Anurag Thakur and other persons, but also in connivance with officers/officials of...
To continue reading
Request your trial