State Of U.P. vs Dilbahar . on 2 July, 2015
It is true that at
the stage of framing of charge, roving and fishing inquiry is
impermissible and the material relied upon by the petitioner
FIR No. 80/10 State Vs. Dilbahar 23 of 26
PS Anand Parbat
cannot be looked into while exercising powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India with Section 482 of the Code. However,
in view of the aforesaid discussion, when it is prima facie proved
that the petitioner has not wrongfully gained anything and/or any
wrongful loss is caused to the Department and the company and
its officers including the petitioner have been granted immunity, in
the opinion of this Court, there is no need to continue with the
criminal Prosecution against the present petitioner. Moreover,
neither in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet any specific allegations
are levelled against the petitioner that he has forged any
document. Even otherwise, looking to the impugned FIR and from
the papers of charge-sheet, the ingredients of the alleged offence
are prima facie not made out so far as the petitioner is
concerned."