9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the First Information Report (FIR) and the investigation based on it. 2. Validity of the orders issued by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad (Annexures 'H' and 'K'). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the First Information Report (FIR) and the Investigation Based on It: The petitioners contended that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and was instituted with mala fide intentions. The FIR alleged that the petitioner No. 2 conspired with government officials to fraudulently obtain compensation by using forged documents. The petitioners argued that their claims for compensation were genuine and supported by valid documents. However, the court found that the FIR disclosed serious allegations of forgery, cheating, and conspiracy, which warranted investigation. The court held that it was not within its jurisdiction to determine the truth of the allegations at this stage, as this was the domain of the investigating agency. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the investigation was mala fide, noting that there was no evidence to support this claim. The court emphasized that the investigating agency had the authority to investigate the allegations and that the court could not quash the investigation based on the petitioners' assertions alone. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar, which allows consideration of materials annexed to the writ application to determine if an FIR discloses an offence. 2. Validity of the Orders Issued by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad (Annexures 'H' and 'K'): The petitioners challenged the orders issued by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad, which canceled and suspended the compensation bonds issued to them. The court found that the order communicated through Annexure 'H' was invalid because it was issued under instructions from an undisclosed person and not based on the Additional Collector's own satisfaction. The court held that the Additional Collector could not validly cancel the bonds based on someone else's instructions. Regarding the order communicated through Annexure 'K', the court examined whether the Additional Collector had the authority to suspend the bonds pending investigation. The court found that the Additional Collector could not rely on Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 did not confer such powers on the authorities. However, the court held that a tribunal has inherent powers to rectify its own mistakes, including those induced by fraud, to ensure justice. The court cited the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab High Court in Jagir Singh v. Settlement Commissioner, which recognized the inherent power of tribunals to correct errors necessary for justice. The court concluded that the Additional Collector's decision to suspend the bonds pending further investigation was valid, as it was based on serious allegations of fraud and cheating. The court emphasized that the petitioners would have an opportunity to represent their case during the investigation. The court directed that before taking any final decision, the petitioners should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitioners' appeal challenging the FIR and the investigation, as well as the State of Bihar's appeal challenging the setting aside of the orders issued by the Additional Collector. The court upheld the validity of the order suspending the bonds pending investigation but invalidated the order canceling the bonds. The court directed that the police investigation continue, but no final report should be filed without the court's leave.
|
