B SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioners, seeking quashment of FIR 517 dated 17.12.2000, under Section 379, IPC of Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula.

(2.) IN the petition, it was alleged that petitioner No. 1 had filed CWP No. 11431 of 2000 in this Court, by way of public interest litigation, seeking a restraint in the illegal commercial mining, being carried out by mining-mafia, in Sukhna/Saketri Cho, a rivulet, feeding Sukhna Lake. It was alleged that the petitioner No. 1 appeared in the said writ petition in person. It was alleged that the about 150 trucks used to leave the place with sand and clay every day and that to check this illegal mining, the petitioner had filed the aforesaid petition in this court. It was alleged that when the writ petition was heard by this Court, the petitioner had argued, in person, that every vehicle, involved in the commercial illegal mining, should be photographed and its registration No. should be recorded and that action, as per law, should be taken against the owners of such vehicles, involved in the commercial illegal mining. It was alleged that this Court had issued interim order, copy Annexure P2, vide which this Court had desired that atleast one Chowkidar be employed to keep a vigil that no unauthorised minor mineral was extracted and that the said chowkidar could note down the registration No. of the vehicle, involved in extracting the minor mineral and to communicate it to the concerned authority, for taking necessary action against the offenders. It was alleged that even though the mining mafia pocketed about 20 to 30 lakhs, between May to October, 2000, as per the written statement filed by SP Panchkula, not a single vehicle/person was apprehended in this regard, even though FIR 347 dated 29.8.2000 under Section 379, IPC, was registered in Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula. It was alleged that ever since the petitioner No. 1 had filed the abovesaid writ petition in this Court and this Court had passed the order, copy Annexure P2, the mining mafia was reluctant to extract the minor mineral in broad-day light, as a result of which, their illegitimate earning was curtailed. It was alleged that the mining mafia could put pressure upon the Panchkula Police to remove petitioner No. 1 from the scene. It was alleged that in pursuance thereof, the Panchkula Police arrested petitioner No. 3, Hari Narain, a labourer, while he was standing at Saketri Cho bank and he was taken to the Police Station/Police Post and was given beatings and thereafter, he was brought back along with plastic bags, kassi, tokri and photographer and was photographed at Sukhna Cho, in digging pose. It was alleged that thereafter, he was taken back to the Police Station and kept in Police custody on 17.12.2000. It was alleged that when Ram Singh, petitioner, also a labourer, came to know about the confinement of his fellow-labourer, he went to the Police Station/Police Post in the evening on the same day and he too was arrested by the Police and his name was also entered in the aforesaid FIR 517 dated 17.12.2000, as an accomplice of Hari Narain, petitioner, taking sand from the Saketri Cho. It was alleged that in the said FIR, the name of petitioner No. 1 was also mentioned as supervisor, supervising the theft operation, while sitting in his kothi, located on the Saketri cho bank itself. It was alleged that the alleged kothi of the petitioner, Dr. B. Singh, mentioned in the FIR, in fact is a building of Becon Charitable Trust, gifted by the mother-in-law of petitioner No. 1, trustee. It was alleged that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were produced in the Court of CJM, Panchkula, on 17.12.2000, but they could not be released on bail, as no one was prepared to stand surety for them, on account of the threats given by the Police officials. It was further alleged that subsequently, petitioner No. 1 also came to know that he was also named as accused in the aforesaid FIR. It was alleged that the entire action of the Police in registration of the FIR was an abuse of the process of Court and that the FIR, in question, was liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard petitioner No. 1 in person and learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.