IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 243 MAHABIR PRASAD STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. investigation in case FIR No.12 dated 14.01.2020, registered under Sections 420, District Rohtak. 2. report filed by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Meham, District Rohtak, dated 31.10.2023, which read thus: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision MAHABIR PRASAD Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY None for the petitioner. Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petition is for transferring the investigation in case FIR No.12 dated 14.01.2020, registered under 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station District Rohtak. Learned State counsel refers to report filed by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Meham, District Rohtak, dated 31.10.2023, which read thus: “3. That during the course of inve relevant record of Property Tax and Tax for the period from 2010-11 to 2013 has been received from M.C. Meham vide letter No.10/HTC/2020 dated 14/1/2020 and as per record Unit No.229 has been entered in the name of Bhup Singh S/o Surajbhan and three units have been shown entered in the name of Nathram Kesarbai and Subhash Chander, but their unit numbers have not been mentioned. Thereafter unit No.233 has been entered in the name of Jagroop S/o Surajbhan. The certified copy of document No.2504 dated 13/12/2010 has been obtained from office of Tehsildar, Meham. The accused Jagroop S/o Surajbhan has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52128-2023 (O & M) Date of decision: 10.09.2025 MAHABIR PRASAD ....Petitioner ...Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana. Prayer made in the present petition is for transferring the investigation in case FIR No.12 dated 14.01.2020, registered under B IPC, at Police Station Meham, Learned State counsel refers to paras 3 and 4 of the status report filed by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Meham, District Rohtak, dated 31.10.2023, which read thus: That during the course of investigation the relevant record of Property Tax and Tax Collection record 11 to 2013 has been received from M.C. Meham vide letter No.10/HTC/2020 dated 14/1/2020 and as per record Unit No.229 has been entered in the name h S/o Surajbhan and three units have been shown entered in the name of Nathram Kesarbai and Subhash Chander, but their unit numbers have not been mentioned. Thereafter unit No.233 has been entered in the name of Jagroop S/o Surajbhan. The certified copy of document No.2504 dated 13/12/2010 has been obtained from office of Tehsildar, Meham. The accused Jagroop S/o Surajbhan has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.11 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-52128-2023 -2- 20/1/2020 by Ld.A.S.J., Rohtak and he was joined in investigation and was questioned. Thereafter vide order dated 24/1/2020 Dharmo Devi W/o Tejram and Tejram S/o Shiv Ram were granted bail interim anticipatory bail by Ld.A.S.J., Rohtak vide order dated 24/1/2020. They were joined in investigation in this case on 27/1/2020. Thereafter their anticipatory bail was made absolute vide order dated 28/1/2020. It has been revealed that Jagroop has filed a civil suit on the basis of document No.2504 dated 13/12/2020 against Smt. Krishna and Rakesh for getting vacating his land and the civil suit was decided by the court of Sh.Rahul Bishnoi, A.S.J., Meham and thereafter Krishna has filed an appeal before Ld.A.S.J., Rohtak and same has been dismissed. Thereafter Krishna has filed second appeal before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and their appeal has been dismissed and as per court order the possession of property was handed over to Jagroop on 16/5/2017 with the help of ballif. As per provisions of Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 the assessment record of M.C. is not an ownership proof of a property. Rather it is only for the purpose of paying municipal tax. On the basis of investigation no criminal offence has been found to be committed, rather the matter is of civil nature. On the basis of investigation the cancellation report has been prepared on 19/7/2023. 4. That on the basis of request of the petitioner to S.P. Rohtak the matter has been referred to Economic cell, Rohtak for further investigation of the case vide order dated 26/7/2023.” 3. Learned State counsel, on instructions, states that after thorough investigation, cancellation report has been submitted in the Court on 25.02.2025. 4. In view of the above, no further order is required to be passed and, as such, the present petition stands disposed of, reserving the petitioner with a liberty to avail of alternate remedy that may be available to him, in accordance with law. 10.09.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.11 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.