NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and have been taken through the record. By means of the instant application, the applicant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482Cr.P.C. with a prayer to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mathura to decide the protest petition filed by the applicant on 27.4.2009. Further prayer is also made to issue direction to the investigating officer to investigate the matter following the procedure laid down in Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.

(2.) The facts in a nutshell emanating from the prosecution story is that a First Information Report was lodged by Ravendra Singh Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad Mathura against Ravindra Pandey the then Chairman, Ashutosh Gupta the then Revenue Inspector, Brij Lal Saini, Nazul Clerkof Nagar Palika Kosi Kalan Mathura, with the allegations that they had misused the power during the tenure of their service by withholding the record pertaining to Shop No. 68/285 and Nazul Demand No. 19 situated at Arya Samaj Road, Mathura which was not presented by them on being demanded again and again. On failure to produce the record, enquiry was held by the enquiry officer Nagar Palika against them. The accused persons were found to have committed offence of withholding the Government file and the relevant documents with regard to the shop in question. The First Information Report was registered on 23.10.2007 vide Case Crime No. 854 of 2007 under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Kotwali District Mathura. The investigating officer took up the investigation and after collecting the material evidence submitted charge-sheet against only Ashutosh Gupta on 22.10.2008. On the basis of the charge-sheet, Magistrate concern took cognizance of the matter on 6.2.2009 and summoned the accused Ashutosh Gupta to face the trial under Section 409 IPC. On the basis of materials collected during investigation, prima facie no cognizable offence was made out against two accused persons namely Ravindra Pandey and Brijlal Saini.

(3.) The moot submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant had applied for allotment of shop in question which was transferred in favour of Smt. Pinki Agarwal wife of Vinod Kumar resident of Journalganj Police Station Kotwali District Mathura in connivance of the accused persons. Subsequent thereafter the shop in question was transferred in favour of Umesh Kumar son of Murari Lal. The applicant had deposited Rs. 1.00 lac with an application for allotting the shop in question in his favour. On the basis of application received through Right to Information, it came to his knowledge that the State Government had directed to enquire into the matter. Thereafter First Information Report was lodged by the Ravindra Singh Executive Engineer against the officials of Nagar Palika Mathura. On coming to know that only one person was charge-sheeted by the investigating officer, the applicant moved protest petition on 27.4.2009 with a prayer to direct the investigating officer to investigate the matter further following the procedure laid down in Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Further prayer was also made that the final report submitted against two persons may be set aside. It was also submitted that the protest petition is pending since the year 2009 and has not been decided as yet which has caused great prejudice to the applicant. The applicant had earlier invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 Constitution of India by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1325 of 2008. The Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to dispose of the writ petition vide order dated 24.1.2008 with a direction that in case the petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner would raise his grievance regarding delay in investigation of the matter before the Senior Superintendent of Police Mathura who would consider and decide the same within a period of two weeks. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 24.1.2008, the investigating officer had submitted charge-sheet against only one person on 22.10.2008 thus the interest of the applicant was highly prejudiced. In these circumstances the applicant filed the protest petition in the year 2009 with a prayer to direct the investigating officer to investigate the matter following the provisions laid down in Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The said protest petition could not see the final light and is still pending. Since the applicant has been agitating his grievance from the very inception and the matter is sub-judice before the Court concern since 2009. The applicant is an aggrieved person has got no other efficacious alternative remedy except to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to direct the Court concern to decide the protest petition and further investigation may also be done by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Section 173 (8)Cr.P.C. at the earliest.