JAYANT CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA.

(2.) THIS application under section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 1. 11. 2007, by which the dis charge application moved by the applicants under section 239 Cr. P. C. in pursuance of this Court's order dated 20. 6. 2007, has been rejected by the Special CJM, Kanpur Nagar, as well as the entire proceedings in Case No, 135 of 2006, under sections 406, 420, 120-B, 504 and 506, IPC, P. S. Kotwali, Dis trict Kanpur Nagar, pending before the aforesaid Court.

(3.) I am not concerned with the legal ity of the sale-agreement. However, the question which troubles me is why the complainant would be paying three amounts of Rs. 50, 000 each, totaling Rs. 1, 50, 000 to Samar Singh unless it was for the purpose of divesting Samar Singh of his share as alleged by the complainant. All these things will have to be clarified by the applicants when they lead their evidence in defence.