Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State Nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 684 of 2009, including the order dated 13.9.2010 whereby and where under, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner.
(2.) MR . Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was the Land Acquisition Officer, had proceeded with acquisition of certain land recorded tenant of which was Harkhu Mian, for construction of Water Treatment Plant and thereby the amount of compensation was paid to the rightful owner of the land However, the complainant -opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 684 of 2009 alleging therein that he is the legal heir of Harkhu Mian who was the recorded tenant of the land, which was acquired, but before compensation was paid accused nos. 1 and 2 namely, Rajendra Prasad and Harkhu Prasad respectively, entered into a criminal conspiracy and thereby they by making false representation took L.T.I./signature of one of the heirs over a blank piece of paper which was converted into power of attorney and on that basis, the land, which was acquired, was sold to someone else When the complainant came to know about this fact, he sent a legal notice stating therein about the foul play of accused nos. 1 and 2 and when the accused persons did not give reply, an application under Sections 12 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed before the petitioner but the petitioner without following the procedure of the Act refused to make payment of the amount of compensation and, therefore, the complainant filed a writ application bearing W.P. (C) No. 5595 of 2004 before this Court which was disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the amount of compensation to the rightful land owner According to the case of the complainant, when the payment was not made to him, he filed a contempt case bearing Contempt (C) Case No. 43 of 2009, as the petitioner by hatching conspiracy with accused nos. 1 and 10 paid a sum of Rs. 4,82,05,740/ - to other person On such allegation, complaint was filed alleging therein that all the accused persons by committing offence of forgery misappropriated a huge amount. On such complaint, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of Indian Penal Code was taken vide order dated 28.06.2010.
(3.) BEING aggrieved with that order, the complainant preferred a criminal revision bearing Cr. Revision No. 157 of 2010 which was allowed and the matter was remanded back for holding further inquiry and to pass a fresh order.;