SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 3.3.2011 laid in Case Crime No. 266 of 2008 on which the learned 6th M.M., Kanpur Nagar has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Chamanganj, district Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 3122 of 2011 as well as the proceedings of the aforementioned case and the summoning order dated 22.11.2011 and the cognizance order dated 30.5.2011 in the aforementioned case.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

(3.) IF further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit provided that the adjournment of hearing of the regular bail on one or more dates should not exceed a total period of one month.