ADITYA NARAIN DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Shri Tej Pal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kr. R.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 and learned AGA for the State.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the FIR in case Crime No. C -32 of 2005, under Sections 302/203, IPC registered at Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. The charge -sheet dated 10 -3 -2006 was submitted by the police therein, on the basis of which, the Criminal Case No. 17209 of 2006, State v. Phool Kumar and Others is pending trial before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case and directing the prosecution to get the case re -investigated by C.B.I. or any other agency.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has alleged that the petitioner is a Government servant and he is neither owner nor partner of the said factory. But in the counter -affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer it has been clearly mentioned that being a Government servant, the petitioner could not be a partner nor owner of the factory in black and white, but he has invested the huge amount in the said factory and manages the same. The Investigating Officer collected reliable evidence about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime and submitted a charge - sheet.