Allahabad High Court
Rajeshwar Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Acb Gzb on 25 November, 2020
Author: Suneet Kumar
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 2 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17145 of 2020 Applicant :- Rajeshwar Singh Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Acb Gzb Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Sharma,Akhilesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, Advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate, appearing for C.B.I.
2. By means of instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant seeks following reliefs:
?It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon?ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 4 of 2020 (CBI Versus Mahesh Chandrbansi and others) pending in the Court of special judge Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad and charge sheet dated 31.03.2020 filed in first information report No. RC1202018A0006 under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station CBI SPE Ghaziabad.?
3. The facts, briefly stated, is that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2017 passed in Special Appeal (Def.) No. 630 of 2016, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ?CBI?), to enquire into the functioning of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was set up and upon enquiry the Addl. Superintendent of Police, CBI, was of the opinion that applicant along with other co-accused are prima facie guilty of issuing fake certificates to candidates on huge consideration. F.I.R. came to be lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and other persons. It is noted in the charge-sheet that accused persons floated a fake Board in the name and style ?Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior? and applicant is the designated Controller of Examination. The Board on consideration started issuing mark-sheets/certificates for current sessions, as well as, for the years prior to its establishment. The alleged Board was charging huge amount from the candidates for fake certificates. The alleged Board had also created a false and fake website categorically mentioning that it is government recognized Board duly approved by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, however, on investigation it was found that no such Board exists either under central government or the Government of Uttar Pradesh or Madhya Pradesh. The investigation further reveals that certificates were issued on the signature of the applicant as Controller of Examination. The details of the bank account of the applicant have been noted, wherein, the amount deposited in lieu of the certificates has been indicated. It is further alleged that there is deep rooted criminal conspiracy between the applicant and other accused persons to cheat by forgery. The investigation further reveals that the applicant created the Board in 2011 taking advantage of the fact that inadvertently a Board of the similar name continued in the regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The said Board came to be de-recognized on 05.11.2014. The fake Board was established by the accused by creating two trust by co-accused Mahesh Chandravanshi without there being any recognition by any of the Boards, either the C.B.S.E. or the State Board of Madhya Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh. Mahesh Chandravanshi earlier filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the entire criminal proceedings based on the same allegations but got it dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.11.2020.
4. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, there is sufficient material duly noted in the charge sheet linking the applicant with the commission of the offence. It is not a case where ingredients of the offence is not made out taking the allegations and evidence on face value, nor, it is a case of malicious prosecution.
5. Learned counsel for applicant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned proceedings so as to warrant interference.
6. The application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 25.11.2020 P. Sri.