PRADEEP GOEL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastav, J. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. S. Hajela Advocate for the respondent No. 3 and learned A. G. A. for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) THE prayer in the instant writ petition is for quashing the order dated 25-8-2006 passed by the Special Judge (C. B. I.) Prevention of Corruption Act U. P. (Purva), Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2006 and order dated 17-2-2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (C. B. I.), Ghaziabad in case No. 4 of 2004.

(3.) SRI Hajela has emphatically disputed the arguments of SRI Vinay Saran. It is submitted that the present petitioner was not an accused in the case in which the local police submitted a final report and also disputed that the First Information Report registered with C. B. I. is not a second First Information Report of the same incident. In fact the investigation was transferred to the C. B. I. , who after conducting preliminary inquiry of the allegations, came to a conclusion that in addition to Rajveer Singh and Naresh Chandra Gupta, the petitioner was also involved. Final report was not accepted by the Court and it is absolutely wrong to say that the First Information Report, which is basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the C. B. I. is a second report of the same offence. In fact when the investigation was transferred, a different crime number was given by the C. B. I. by Delhi Police Establishment, Dehradun Branch and contention of the learned Counsel is not correct and far-fetched. The argument on the basis of the principles laid down in the case of T. T. Antony (supra) has also been disputed by SRI Hajela.