Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/376/2024 on 29 April, 2024
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPCRL No. 376 of 2024
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Girish Chandra Lakchaura and Mr.
Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. V. K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel with Mr.
Abhishek Arora, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr.
Ram Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for the CBI.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is
permitted to implead C.B.I. as one of the
respondents during the course of the day.
5. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is
praying for quashing of FIR No. 0082 of 2024 dated
15.04.2024 whereby the petitioner has been
implicated for the offences punishable under
Sections 342, 384, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station -
Cantt. District Dehradun.
6. The impugned FIR has been lodged by
respondent no. 3 - Suresh Lawrance Patrick alias S.
L. Patrick, who is the Director of Geology and
Mining Department, Government of Uttarakhand.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has
been falsely implicated. It is contended in
paragraph 7 of the writ petition that petitioner is
being persuaded by the respondent no.3, who is
holding the post of Director in Mining Department
that if he pays money to him, he will allot the
mining lease in favour of the petitioner within a
period of six months. Petitioner agreed with offer of
respondent no. no. 3 and paid Rupees Two Lakhs to
respondent no. 3 in September, 2021, and Rupees
Three lakhs in October 2021 in cash.
8. It is further contended in paragraph 8 of the
writ petition that despite the assurance given by the
respondent no. 3 no mining lease was granted to the
petitioner, though he has handed over all the
documents required for the mining lease and
despite several requests, when no mining lease was
given, then in October, 2022, petitioner met
respondent no. 3 and he told that since the policy of
the State Government giving the mining rights on
agricultural land has been quashed by the High
Court vide judgment dated 26.9.2022 and, therefore,
no mining lease can be allotted. It is further
contended in para 9 that he gave further assurance
that when the direction issued by the High Court is
set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
respondent no.3 will facilitate the mining lease to
the petitioner. It is further contended in para 11 that
the petitioner was asking for refund of his amount,
which was paid to the respondent no. 3 and a
message was also sent on 16.02.2024, in support of
which, screenshot of the whatsapp chat between the
petitioner and the respondent no.3 is also enclosed
as Annexure 4 to the writ petition.
9. In para 18, it is submitted that on 10.04.2024,
the petitioner tried to lodge his complaint against
respondent no.3 with Police Station - Vasant Vihar,
but since his complaint was against a very high
ranking officer of Mining Department, the police
did not register the complaint of the petitioner and
he compelled the petitioner to run from pillar to
post, and on 12.04.2024 the petitioner submitted his
complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Dehradun, which was duly received in SSP Office,
Dehradun. It is submitted that after submitting this
complaint to the SSP, Dehradun on 12.04.2024 the
FIR was lodged by the respondent no. 3 which is
being challenged.
10. It is submitted that the impugned First
Information Report has been lodged on 15.04.2024
as a counter-blast to the complainant made to the
SSP on 12.04.2024 by the petitioner and the
respondent no.3 by using his official powers,
manipulated the date of complaint in the impugned
FIR, which was mentioned as 11.04.2024.
11. On the previous date, the State Counsel was
directed to get instructions in the matter,
particularly, about the whatsapp chats as contained
in Annexure 4.
12. Today, though no instructions have been
received in respect of the whatsapp chats, but the
comments have been furnished before this Court
about the First Information Report, which is
submitted by the Investigating Officer, who is the
Senior Sub Inspector Kotwali Cantt, District
Dehradun. The same is placed on record.
13. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for the petitioner also placed before this
Court another whatsapp chat dated 10.04.2024 and
the same is also taken on record.
14. Certainly, there are allegations and counter
allegations. However, the allegations are also
against a public servant, who holds a key post in
the Mining Department. Apart from this, these
allegations, as alleged against the respondent no.3
by the petitioner including the whatsapp chats and
the complaint made to the SSP, Dehradun dated
12.04.2024 annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ
petition and furthermore the today's whatsapp chat
which the learned counsel for the petitioner has
presented before this Court, prima facie, appears to
be a glaring example of the corruption.
15. The State may file counter affidavit within
ten days.
16. Put up this matter on 10.05.2024.
17. In the meantime, learned counsel for the
C.B.I. may also examine whether this case is a fit
case to be inquired by the C.B.I. or not.
18. Copy of the whatsapp chats between the
petitioner and respondent no.3, which is filed today
in the Court by learned counsel for the petitioner be
also supplied to the leaned counsel for the C.B.I.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
29.04.2024
Kaushal
