- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties as well as the Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner ­ Modaram has deposited the money due against the auction along with the interest and penalty, and in the FIR, it has not been narrated as to which money was due against him. He submits that without ascertaining the fact as to whether any money remained due despite the certificate dated 09.08.2001, the FIR has been registered. He further submits that the State Government had already directed for regularization of the plot in question on 27.12.1995 and since the dues have already been deposited on 24.01.1992, no dues remain to be paid to the Municipality and, as such, neither any wrongful loss has been caused to the Municipality nor any wrongful gain has been caused to Modaram. Thereby, it has been stated that the essential ingredients for the commission of the offence under Section 13 of the P.C. Act are not made out. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per the letter of the State Government dated 27.12.1995, the petitioner was required to pay the amount along with interest and penalty thereon and the regularization was subject to these payments. Despite that the petitioners Nauratan Mal and Shanker Lal Gehlot facilitated the sale of the auctioned plot without receiving the said amounts on behalf of the Municipality, thereby, causing wrongful loss to the Municipality and the wrongful gain to the petitioner Modaram. I have perused the FIR impugned and have perused all the documents annexed with the petitions. On perusal of the documents annexed to the petitions, it becomes clear that the petitioner Modaram's case is that he had already made the payment of interest and penalty with regard to the land purchased in auction in the year 1992 itself and thereafter the State Government has regularized the plot in question, as such, if any permission to sale has been given after the regularization of the plot in question in the year 1995, then, the question would be whether any dues remain outstanding. In the opinion of this Court, there is a dispute as to whether the permission to sale was given without receiving the dues in terms of the order of the State Government dated 27.12.1995. This dispute can only be settled by investigation of the matter in this regard. In this view of the matter, the Investigating Officer is directed to investigate the matter in this regard particularly with regard to the certificate dated 24.01.1992 relied upon by the petitioners and the order of the State Government dated 27.12.1995. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer may proceed to submit the report to the concerned court. Accordingly, these misc. petitions stand disposed of. The interim stay orders passed by this Court stand vacated.;