MIRTUNJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-accused Dr. Mirtunjay Kumar invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), to quash the charge-sheet dtd. 28/2/2019, summoning order dtd. 2/3/2019, and the entire proceedings of the Special Sessions Trial No.01 of 2019, "State vs. Mirtunjay Kumar Mishra" pending before the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Dehradun, arising out of the Case Crime No.09 of 2018, under Ss. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Sec. 13(1)(a) (c) (d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act", 1988).

(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the applicant was holding the post of Registrar of the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University, Dehradun (in short, "the university"). The then Vice-Chancellor of the university, by his letter dtd. 14/6/2018, addressed to the Chief Minister, along with preliminary enquiry report, recommended for conducting enquiry against the present applicant in relation to allegations of financial irregularities, committed by the applicant during his tenure to the post of Registrar of the university for the period between 2013 to 2017. On 16/11/2018, the Additional Chief Secretary of the State Government recommended for registration of FIR and investigation of the matter. Mr. Prakash Singh, Inspector Vigilance, conducted open vigilance enquiry. After enquiry, he lodged the First Information Report on 17/11/2018 against the applicant and co-accused persons. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet is filed.

(3.) During the investigation, evidence are produced to the effect that during his tenure, the applicant appointed his real brother's wife illegally. He had received reimbursement by showing falsely rail and air travel. He had illegally bought computers and electronic items for the university from M/s Amazon Automotion (Dehradun) and M/s Creative World Soluting (Dehradun). The owners of these firms are close to the applicant. The place where these firms were shown to be working was the private residence of the applicant. The bank accounts of these firms were opened fraudulently. The bank accounts of these firms were operated by the applicant and money from these bank accounts was received by the applicant.