VIJAY KUMAR TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Salil Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Anadi Banerji for the respondent no.2 and perused the record.

(2.) THIS is a petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case no. 5133 of 2006 (State vs. Kripal Singh Abott and others), arising out of crime no. 208 of 2003, under sections 406, 504, 420, 201 and 120-B IPC, police station Hazratganj, district Lucknow, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Lucknow and also for quashing the order dated 20.3.2010 whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the petitioner's discharge application and the order dated 6.7.2010 whereby a non bailable warrant has been issued against him.

(3.) IN view of the fact the petitioner could not get any relief regarding his prayer for quashing the charge sheet as well as the summoning order in the aforesaid first petition, the present petition for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case and the summoning order can not be entertained and to this extent the present petition is not maintainable. But in compliance of the aforesaid order the petitioner moved an application for discharge under section 239 CrPC, which has been rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide the impugned order dated 20.3.2010 holding that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and other accused, therefore, they were not entitled for the discharge. Against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate the petitioner filed second petition under section 482 CrPC (Criminal Misc. Case No. 2222/2010 Vijay Kumar Trivedi vs. State of U.P. and others) but the learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew that petition with the liberty to file a fresh petition. Thereafter the present petition has been filed. Since the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate disposed of the petitioner's application for discharge by the impugned order dated 20.3.2010, therefore, the present petition questioning legality of the order dated 20.3.2010 seems to be maintainable and to this extent the petition is liable to be considered on merit.