Madhya Pradesh High Court says Sessions Judge wrongly dropped charges against accused, calls for probe

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently recommended an inquiry against a judicial officer for dropping serious charges against a person accused of embezzlement of lakhs of rupees in a land acquisition matter [Roop Singh Parihar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh].

Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta said that the Additional Sessions Judge Vivek Sharma appeared to have done the same to ensure that the accused gets the benefit of bail.

“A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat, Jabalpur and to put up the same before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking permission for conducting an inquiry and for taking disciplinary action against Ist Additional Sessions Judge (Shri Vivek Sharma), Shivpuri who had discharged the present applicant from the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 107 of IPC without considering the facts of the case and to give undue advantage to the applicant to get benefit of bail. Therefore, it appears that Ist Additional Sessions Judge has ulterior motive in holding charge under Section 406 of IPC only against the applicant to give undue advantage to him by which applicant can avail the benefit of bail,” the High Court said.

The Court passed the directions after hearing the bail plea of accused Roop Singh Parihar, a computer operator in the office of Land Acquisition Officer.

The case was registered last year alleging that a payment of over ₹6.55 lakh was to be made to four persons in a land acquisition matter but instead over ₹25 Lakh was transferred to eight persons including Parihar and his wife. Parihar is alleged to have forged the orders of the Collector. 

His counsel argued that if the prosecution story is believed, he can at most be charged with Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It was also submitted that it was only a case of unequal and disproportionate distribution of the compensation on account of mistake of evaluators. The Court was told that a co-accused has already been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

However, the State said Parihar is the main accused in the case and that neither his land was acquired nor was he one of those farmers whose name was in the list of those whose land was to be acquired. 

“The present applicant, by way of misusing the IDs, has embezzled the public money. He has manipulated the order of the Collector and has also made forged documents,” the State counsel said.

It was also submitted that the accused had set revenue records on fire.

Considering the submissions, the Court remarked that a thorough investigation is going on and many perpetrators are yet to be identified. 

“It is also evident that not a single evidence or supporting document has been appended herein showing that the land of the present applicant was acquired by any public/governmental authority, for which he is claiming to have received the aforesaid huge sum of money,” the Court added.

It further said that the Additional District and Sessions Judge had erred in discharging the accused of most of the charges.   

“Charge-sheet was filed against the present applicant and other co-accused before the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge Shivpuri whereas investigation is pending under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C and Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivpuri while ignoring the said fact, has held that only Section 406 of IPC is made out against the applicant and case was referred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial. Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge Shivpuri also erred in holding that no offence has been made out against the present applicant for offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.”

The Court declined to grant bail to Parihar on the ground of parity since he was working as a computer operator and thus, could easily make forged and fabricated documents or manipulate the orders of the Collector. 

“Looking to the act of applicant where he has misused his post as computer operator in the office of land acquisition department and made forged document of Collector Office as well as has manipulated the orders of Collector and in view of the evidence available on record and also taking note of the fact that thorough investigation is going on in which many truths are yet to come to the fore and many layers are yet to be gone into, therefore, this Court does not find that it is a good case for grant of bail to the applicant at this stage,” it said.

Advocates Rabindra Kumar Mishra and Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi represented the accused.

Advocate Abhishek Bhadoriya represented the State.

[Read Order]