SANTOSH SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has assailed the order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate III, Lucknow in Case No.6849/2011 arising out of Crime No.747/2009 under Sections 420, 427, 465, 471, 182 CrPC and under Section 43/66 I.T. Act and Section 63 of the Copy Right Act relating to P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow whereby the discharge application moved by the applicant has been rejected. The applicant has further prayed for setting aside the charges framed against the petitioner vide order dated 25.08.2014.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no.2 had earlier approached this Hon'ble Court by way of filing an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the order dated 28.06.2014, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow had provided time to the applicant to move discharge application. The said application under Section 482 CrPC was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2014 with the direction that the learned Magistrate, before whom, the criminal case is pending, shall decide the discharge application expeditiously and shall proceed to frame charge against the accused -persons after disposal of the discharge application and shall try to dispose of the criminal case preferably within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before it.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 25.07.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court on the application of the opposite party no.2 was taken by the learned Magistrate as a direction to frame charge against the applicant. It was because of this reason that the learned Magistrate rejected the discharge application in a routine manner and proceeded to frame charge against the applicant. Learned Magistrate did not take into consideration the evidence on record and the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court in the matter of co -accused by which he was discharged by this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court upheld his discharge. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had also applied for modification of the order dated 25.07.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court but the learned counsel could not reach the Court when the application was taken up for disposal and the same was rejected. In the aforesaid back -ground, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the order passed on the discharge application as well as charges framed against the applicant be set aside and a further direction be issued to the concerned Magistrate to consider the discharge application afresh.