Uttarakhand High Court

Om Prakash Tewari vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 February, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                    NAINITAL

               Writ Petition (Crl) No. 376 of 2024


Om Prakash Tewari                                         ...Petitioner

                                  Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others                      ...Respondents


Presence:
1.   Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2.   Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Government Advocate for the State.
3.   Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.
4.   Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Raj Kishore
Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.



Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral)

Heard.

2. In this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the First Information Report dated 15.04.2024 bearing FIR No. 0082 of 2024, wherein, the petitioners have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 384, 504 and 506 of IPC, P.S. Cantt, District Dehradun.

3. After taking into consideration the averment as made in paragraph 7, 8 and paragraph 18 of the petition wherein certain allegations have been alleged against respondent no. 3, who is holding a high ranking post in the Mining department, this court on 29.04.2024 prima-facie was of the view that raising allegations against the officer holding a high ranking post in the Mining department prima facie appears to be glaring example of corruption.

4. In addition to this, this court also observed that the CBI may also examine whether this is a fit case to be enquired by

the CBI or not. Certain Whatsapp chats were also placed before this court and the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to supply the same to the learned counsel for the CBI so that he may go through with that. The relevant extract of the order dated 29.04.2024 is also being reproduced herein as under:

"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."

5. On 26.06.2024 learned counsel Mr. Lalit Sharma the then counsel for CBI placed before this court the letter of Head Branch of C.B.I./A.C.B. Dehradun, which is kept on record in a sealed envelope.

6. On 29.08.2024 the learned Advocate General Mr. S.N. Babulkar stated that Government will constitute S.I.T. and the S.I.T. will examine the entire issue and submit a report in a sealed envelope after one month.

7. Thereafter on 01.10.2024 learned Government Advocate Mr. Amit Bhatt informed to this court that as per the statement as given by the learned Advocate General the S.I.T. has already been constituted and the inquiry is going on and he seeks a month's time to conclude the inquiry by the S.I.T.

8. On 27.11.2024 the S.I.T. report was submitted by way of an affidavit though this court directed to the State to file S.I.T. report in a sealed envelope, despite this by way of an affidavit the S.I.T. report was filed by the State.

9. In the meantime, the respondent no. 3 approached to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated 29.08.2024 and 29.04.2024 passed by this court.

The extract of order dated 29.04.2024 is already reproduced above; however, the order passed by this court on 29.08.2024, which was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court is also being reproduced herein as under:

"5. Learned Advocate General Mr. S.N. Babulkar submits before this court that the Government will constitute S.I.T. and the S.I.T. will examine the entire issue and submit a report in a sealed envelope after one month."

10. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismiss the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 44150 of 2024 on 27.09.2024, which is being reproduced herein as under:

"1. Ms. Vibha Datta, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is permitted on her request to withdraw the Special Leave Petition so as to enable the petitioner take recourse to such remedies as are available in law before the High Court.

2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. "

11. On 19.12.2024 learned counsel for respondent no. 3, who is the complainant of the impugned FIR submits that the S.I.T. report is very bulky, therefore, he wants some time to examine it. Apart from this, he also submits that he will furnish the complete details of movable and immovable assets of respondent no. 3 and his family members including bank details and lockers and for this purpose he needs two weeks time. Consequently, on his request the matter was posted on 09.01.2025.

12. On 09.01.2025 learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that the S.I.T. has not given sufficient time to respondent no. 3 to furnish their details though S.I.T. filed bulky report, however in compliance to the order dated 19.11.2024 a detailed affidavit was filed disclosing the details of movable and immovable properties and he also stated that there is no locker either in the name of the petitioner or his wife. On that day Mr.

Dushyant Mainali learned counsel for the petitioner gives reference of page 9 and 10 of the S.I.T. report wherein the details of various immovable properties has been given in which some of them are agricultural land and some of them are residential flats and submits that no sale deed in respect of these immovable properties has been enclosed. Consequently, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 seeks four weeks' time to file the copy of sale deeds and other deeds in reference to the properties as shown at page 9 of the SIT report. On his request the time was granted.

13. Apart from this, learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks four weeks' time to file response to the affidavit filed by respondent no. 3 as well as official respondent; however, no such affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

14. Since, the S.I.T. report was submitted and the respondent no. 3 contended that the S.I.T. has not given sufficient time and this court was of the view that let the respondent no. 3 may file their affidavit by enclosing the details of the sale deed. Consequently, the court observed that since the S.I.T. already submitted its report no interference of the C.B.I. is required and there is no necessity either to get instruction or to file affidavit therefore for the time being the C.B.I. was not treated as a contesting respondent.

15. Today in compliance to the order passed by this court dated 09.01.2025 a fresh affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3 enclosing the details of 15 immovable properties purchased either by respondent no. 3 or his wife or his son. There is also reference of one such sale deed, which was purchased by petitioner's wife with a stranger though friend with the consideration of Rs. 6.06 lakhs with 50 percent share each of an

agriculture land measuring 0.9321 hectare (11.51 bigha). In a reference to this sale deed it is contended that the amount paid towards this sale deed was in cash.

16. The reference of all immovable properties has been given in paragraph 3 onwards to paragraph 17. On perusal of this, it reveals that the immovable property the reference of which has been given in paragraph 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 were purchased by paying consideration amount in cash.

17. In paragraph 18 the reference of source of income of respondent no. 3, his wife and his son has also been given. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed an affidavit giving the details of his assets in compliance to earlier order and furthermore now a fresh affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 3 giving the details of movable and immovable assets Mr. Dushyant Mainali submits that he may be given sufficient time to go through with this affidavit in order to enable him to file a response for which he prays for and is granted two weeks' time.

18. Now, Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Government Advocate also informed to this court that after concluding the entire investigation pursuant to the impugned FIR the final report has been filed and he submits that this investigation is only confined to the allegations as alleged in the FIR. Now, the question is whether the Investigating Agency should confine with the allegations of the FIR and why the other factors, which has been mentioned in the writ petition have not been examined; this requires deep scrutiny in the matter. Let the State may place before this court the copy of the final report in order to ascertain whether the other factors, which have been highlighted by the petitioner in his petition, have been investigated or not.

19. Apart from this, on perusal of the S.I.T. report it reveals that the respondent no. 3 has not given any satisfactory response for which respondent no. 3 has given time to give the response.

20. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 Mr. Raj Kishore Chaudhary pointed out that the details of the sale deeds and other documents, which has been filed in last compliance affidavit dated 13.02.2025 were furnished to the S.I.T.

21. Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Government Advocate submits that he has no instructions whether the details of the immovable properties furnished by the respondent no. 3 in its last compliance affidavit have been furnished to the S.I.T. To verfy this he seeks further two weeks' time.

22. Since, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate requests for two weeks' time to file their respective affidavits.

23. Apart from this, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 also place on record the prior approval of the department concerned for purchasing the immovable properties, the description of which has been given in paragraph 3 onwards to paragraph 17 of the last compliance affidavit.

24. Time, so prayed, is granted.

25. Let the affidavit be filed within two weeks.

26. List this matter on 19.03.2025.
             .                          (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
                                            27.02.2025

PR

 