An accused in the over ₹5-crore stamp duty evasion case has moved the local court here against the registration of an FIR against 14 builders and as many government officials in the case on the grounds that the complainant made wrong assertions in his complaint.
Judical Magistrate (First Class) Naveen Kumar had on December 1 ordered registration of an FIR for alleged evasion of stamp duty in registration of 53 agricultural properties falling within the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram (MCG) limit treating them outside the municipal limit. The FIR was registered at Manesar police station on December 4. The accused include Sub-Registrars and Joint Sub-Registrars.
Moving the application before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Suruchi Atreja, 40-year-old Sarabjit Singh contended that the contents of the complaint made by Ramesh Yadav, the RTI activist, were “wrong” and therefore, he refrained from filing an affidavit in support of his allegations, which is in contravention of the Supreme Court ruling that applications under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure be supported by an affidavit. Therefore, in absence of a statutory affidavit attached with the complaint, the court could not have proceeded further with the complaint, said the application.
ADC report
Mr. Singh also defended the report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner in this regard saying that the officer had explained the process of HARSIL software, alleged to be tampered with, and the technical glitch. He further said that as per the ADC report all these cases were already referred to the collector and recoveries made in 25 cases and dropped in 21 cases.
He argued that the old municipal limit was notified in 2008 and the same was uploaded in the HARSIL software, but the land sold through 53 sale deeds was notified in 2010. Communication regarding the new notification could not reach the tehsil officer, Manesar, by the time the sale deeds were executed, causing loss to State exchequer, said the plea moved by Mr. Singh
Counter-claim
Mr. Yadav said the court had in its order categorically observed that the ADC presented a manipulated report. He asked why his complaint on the CM window in the case was still not closed had the ADC presented the correct report. He also rubbished the argument of Mr. Singh that the State Vigilance Department had not found truth in his complaint, saying his complaint was never examined by the agency.
