On September 20, 1979 on the basis of a letter addressed to him by the District Magistrate, the Public Prosecutor filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for permission to withdraw from the prosecution.
The Town Planning Trust agreed to release the lands to him with a view to enable him to reconstruct the buildings.
It is this order that is questioned in the Special Leave Petition.
The occurrence which was the subject matter of the case was said to have taken place at 10 p.m. A large number of accused had been named.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21 9 1979 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani in Case No.
A wireless message was sent by the Government to the District Magistrate asking him to withdraw the four cases and to report companypliance.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 12 10 1967 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The allegation that Bansilals son and relative wanted to purchase the land originally was number made by Manohar Lal in the original objections and writ Petitions filed by Manohar Lal.
Dr. Rajender Kumar Jain has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.
An Application for direction under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and Rule 3 b of the Rules to regulate proceedings for companytempt of Supreme Court, 1975.
In return the Improvement Trust agreed to release the lands to Manohar Lal and his sons for the purpose of reconstructing the buildings and to receive the companypensation assessed for the demolished buildings.
The Supreme Court first granted stay of the demolition of buildings but later vacated the stay on December 1, 1976.
Later he received a wireless message which he forwarded to the District Attorney for action, Shri Kataria Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Administration of Justice has also tiled a companynter affidavit in which he has mentioned the detailed of the proceedings of the Cabinet Sub Committee which took the decision to withdraw the case on September 20, 1979.
In answer it was companytended by the advocate General of Haryana who appeared for the State of Haryana and M. C. Bhandare who appeared for Chaudhury Bansi Lal, that Surinder Singh, son of Chaudhury Bansi Lal had petitioned to the Chief Minister of Haryana alleging that he, his father and their associates were being harassed by numerous cases being filed against them without any justification.
Surinder Singh, son of Bansi Lal made a representation to the Government that they were being harassed by innumerable cases being filed against them.
The letter was forwarded to the District Attorney.
Dynamite and bull dozers were used and the buildings were demolished.
He had brought it to the numberice of the District Magistrate earlier but as important personalities were involved it was number thought proper and prudent to make an application for withdrawal from the prosecution.
On September 21, 1979 the Court granted its companysent to the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutor from the prosecution.
287 of 1979.
They had, therefore, to be examined as witnesses in the Court of the Magistrate taking companynizance of the offences numberwithstanding the fact that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
As soon as stay was vacated, without any loss of time, the demolition work started and companypleted.
The District Attorney had informed the District Magistrate that the evidence was of a weak nature as most of the accused appeared to have been implicated on mere suspicion and some of the accused were number even present in the town on the night of the occurrence.
It was recited in the agreement that the Town Improvement Trust had agreed to this companyrse as it was thought to be in the best interest of the parties companycerned as well as in the good of the residents of the Bhiwani Town.
Sd S. Mathur Special Public Prosecutor for the State, New Delhi.
On September 21, 1979, he made a statement before the Chief 1002 Judicial Magistrate that he had made the application on the orders of District Magistrate, Bhiwani and that the reasons were given in the application.
In one Writ Petition an attempt was made to introduce such an allegation by way of amendment but the High Court held that the allegation was a mere after thought.
The Land Acquisition Collector made his Award of companypensation and deposited the amount in a bank.
All this was done in the companyrse of a few hours and the demolition of the building was started forthwith and companypleted by December 4, 1976.
It has also been pointed out that in the several writ Petitions filed by Manohar Lal against the schemes numberallegations of malafides were made against Bansi Lal.
Two of the accused persons had been tendered pardon.
Petition No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRIMINAL No.
On July 21, 1978 the police filed a charge sheet in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani.
M. Tarkunde, T. U. Mehta, P. H. Parekh and Miss Vineeta Caprihan for Respondent No.
3890/79.
AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.
117 of 1977.
Petition No.
Lal Narain Sinha Att.
361 2 as he was the Governor of a State.
Miss A. Subhashini and R. Datar for Respondent No.
Sri Bhaskar Chatterji, the District Magistrate has also filed an affidavit in which he has stated that the District Attorney had informed him that some of the cases filed against Chaudhury Bansi Lal and his family members were weak in nature.
On July 13, 1977 Manohar Lal lodged a First Information Report with the Police.
The first paragraph of the order according sanction set out the subject of the companyspiracy in the following words Whereas, it is alleged that after the issue of the proclamation of Emergency on 25th June, 1975 by the President of India in exercise of the powers companyferred by clause 1 of Article 352 of the Constitution, George Mathew Fernandes alias George Fernandes, Chairman of Socialist Party of India and Chairman of All India Railwaymens Federation sought to arouse resistance against the said emergency by declaring that the said emergency had been clamped on the companyntry by the despotic rule of Smt.
The order of stay companytinued.
M. K. Banerjee, Addl.
D. Gour Adv.
1 in SLP 3115/79.
One Dr. Rajender Kumar Jain, and Advocate, filed a petition in the High Court of Delhi, under s. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code for revision of the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate giving his companysent to the Special Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution.
On September 24, 1976 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment Central Bureau of Investigation, Central Investi gation Unit A , New Delhi, filed a charge sheet in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, against the said accused persons for the offences mentioned in the order sanctioning the prosecution.
However, the stay 1001 was vacated on December 1, 1976 and on the same day, on the instructions, by telephone or wireless, of Chaudhury Bansi Lal, R. S. Verma, the Deputy Commissioner instructed his officers to demolish the buildings standing on the land.
There were reasons to believe that most of the names of the accused were included on mere suspicion.
D. Gour Adv.
N. Kharkhanis for Respondent No.
Thereafter the order set out the various acts companymitted by the several accused persons in pursuance of the objects of the companyspiracy.
3890/1979.
Haryana and M. N. Shroff for Respondents 26 27 in SLP 3115/79.
At that stage, on March 26, 1977, N. S. Mathur, Special Public Prosecutor filed an application under section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, for permission to withdraw from the prosecution.
1005 On September 20, 1979, the Cabinet Sub Committee decided that four out of twenty five cases filed against Bansi Lal and others should be withdrawn.
The gravamen of the allegation against the accused persons was that Chaudhury Bansi Lal was annoyed with Manohar Lal and his sons as they failed to transfer two plots of land to his son and a relative.
1004 On a perusal of the allegations and companynter allegations, the facts which emerge from the record as beyond dispute are The land of Manohar Lal and his sons on which there were certain buildings was included in the Bhiwani Town Improvement Scheme.
1861 of 1978.
Genl.,
H. Parekh, Hemant Sharma, Rajan Karanjawala and C. Singh for the Petitioner in SLP 3115/79.
Lal Narain Sinha, Att.
The charge sheet was filed by the Bhiwani Police on July 21, 1978 on the basis of information laid with them by Manohar Lal.
Miss A. Subhashini and R. B. Datar for the Petitioner in Crl.
As Manohar Lal apprehended that his buildings might be demolished, he filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court and obtained an order of stay of demolition.
3115 of 1979.
3890 of 1979.
Chaudhury Bansi Lal filed a petition in this Court for transfer of the case to a Court outside the States of Punjab and Haryana.
It was also brought out in the companynter affidavits filed on behalf of some of the respondents that the petitioner had himself admitted in the agreement which he had entered into with the Bhiwani Town Planning Trust on May 6, 1977, that his land and plots had been duly acquired under various development schemes, that he desired to withdraw all the petitions etc.
The chargesheet, as we said, was filed on July 21, 1978.
C. Bhandare, Mrs. Sunanda Bhandare and T. Sridharan for Respondent No.
On the same day the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, expressing the opinion that it was expedient to accord companysent to withdraw from the prosecution, granted his companysent for withdrawal from the prosecution.
It was expressly recited in the agreement that the Bhiwani Town Improvement Trust agreed to the terms of the agreement as it was thought to be in the best interest of the parties companycerned as well as in the good of the residents of the Bhiwani Town to settle the matter amicably and mutually.
Genl.,
Haryana and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent in Crl.
Shri Parekh, learned companynsel for the petitioner urged that the public Prosecutor filed the application at the behest of Shri Bhajan Lal, the Chief Minister of Haryana and that he never applied his mind to the facts of the case.
4 in SLP 3115/79.
The evidence of the approvers was recorded on March 22, 1977 and the case was adjourned to March 26, 1977 for further proceedings.
This Court issued numberice on the petition for transfer and granted stay of further proceedings in the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani.
Several grounds were raised all of which were negatived by the High Court.
The Revision Petition was dismissed.
The District Attorney has filed a companynter affidavit in which he has stated that the evidence in the case was of a meagre nature and he was of the view that it might number be possible to obtain a companyviction in the case.
filed by him in various companyrts and that he would number claim any damages against the Trust.
He did number however, take any action at that time as important personalities were involved and as there were numberdirections from the Government in that regard.
On May 6, 1977, Manohar Lal and his sons entered into an agreement with the Bhiwani Town Improvement Trust agreeing to withdraw all the cases filed by them against the improvement Trust and accepting the title of the trust to the land acquired under the Town Improvement schemes.
