Allahabad High Court
Ram Gopal Gupta And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 January, 2010
Author: Bala Krishna Narayana
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana
Court No. - 40 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26699 of 2009 Petitioner :- Ram Gopal Gupta And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Jeevan Prakash Sharma Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Jeevan Prakash Sharma and the learned AGA appearing on behalf of respondents no.1,2 and 3.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the part of the judgement and order dated 9.4.2008 passed by Special Judge, (Anti Corruption Act) Bareilly in Criminal Revision No.328 of 2007, Ram Gopal Gupta and others Vs State of U.P. and others by which revisional court partly allowed the petitioner's discharge application but found that there were sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no.4 lodged the FIR against the petitioners on 15.9.04 on the basis of which Case Crime No.1873 of 2004 under Section 420/467/468 IPC and 15(3) MCI Act 1956 was registered against the petitioners at Police Station Prem Nagar District Bareilly. The FIR was investigated by the Investigating Officer who after investigating the matter submitted the police report against the petitioners on 12.1.2005 under Sections 420/467/468 IPC and Section 15(3) MCI Act 1956.
He further submitted that the petitioners preferred Criminal Miscellaneous application No.5673 of 2005 Dr. Ram Gopal Gupta Vs State of U.P. and others before this Court with the prayer for quashing the chargesheet. This Court vide order dated 18.5.05 declined to quash the chargesheet, however, liberty was given to the petitioners to appear through counsel before the court below and claim discharge at the appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.5.2005 the petitioners moved a discharge application before the Judicial Magistrate III, Bareilly on 17.7.2007 which was dismissed by the Judicial magistrate by his order dated 17.7.2007 which was challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.328 of 2007 which was partly allowed by the Special Judge ( Anti Corruption Act) Bareilly,by his order dated 9.4.2008 whereby the revisional court held that there was no material for proceeding against the petitioners under Section 467/468 and 15(3) MCI Act 1956 but there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners under Section 420 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the view taken by the court below that there was sufficient material on record for proceeding against the petitioners under Section 420 IPC, is totally erroneous and not warranted by any evidence on recored. Once the revisional court came to the conclusion that the petitioners can not be proceeded against under Section 467/468 IPC and 15(3) MCI Act 1956, there was no justification for proceeding against the petitioners under Section 420 IPC .
Learned AGA appearing on behalf of respondents no.1,2 and 3 submitted that the the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting any interference by this Court. I have considered the arguments made by learned counsel for petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned order passed by revisional court shows that the same is based on relevant considerations and is supported by cogent reasons.The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order suffers from anyinfirmity, illegality and perversity. There is no justification for quashing the part of the impugned order as prayed by petitioners.
The writ petition has got no merit. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is provided that in case the petitioners appear / surrender before the court below within a period of one month from today and apply for bail , their bail application shall be considered by both the courts below expeditiously , if possible on the same day, in accordance with law .
Subject to the aforesaid directions the writ petition stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 7.1.2010 cps