RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as "Code") has been filed by the Petitioner for setting aside the order dated 27.3.2008 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) Lucknow rejecting the application to discharge the Petitioner and the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Lucknow dismissing revision preferred against the said order and also for the prayer of quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005 (State v. Dr. Dhirendra Singh and Ors.) under Sections 120B, 380, 411 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code pending against him in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate C.B.I. Lucknow.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts material for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that in the matter of theft, leakage and sale of question papers of entrance test of All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2002 (A.I.P.G.M.E.E. 2002) an F.I.R., Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition was lodged under the order of Hon'ble High Court, Delhi. The Petitioner though was not named in the said F.I.R., but the C.B.I. after having completed the investigation of the case filed charge sheet against several persons including the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereafter filed a petition under Sections 482/483 of the Code for quashing the charge sheet. The prayer for quashing the charge sheet was refused but finding substance in the contention that case for framing charges against Petitioner is not made out, protection was granted to the Petitioner to the effect that if any N.B.W. is issued against him, the same shall be kept in abeyance till the framing of the charges. The petition was disposed of accordingly. There after the Petitioner appeared before the learned magistrate and moved an application to discharge him. The said application was rejected by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I) by impugned order dated 27.3.2008. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the Petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Session Judge which was heard and dismissed by learned Additional Session Judge, Lucknow by impugned order dated 25.2.2009. Feeling aggrieved with the said orders the Petitioner has filed this petition with the prayers stated above.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the opposite parties at considerable length and perused the impugned orders along with the record .