DEV NATH VERMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case no.5 of 2002 (State Vs. Dr. Dev Nath verma) pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution and CBI, Lucknow and for setting aside the order dated 2.4.2003 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution and CBI, Lucknow rejecting the application for discharge filed by the petitioner as well as the order dated 27.2.2004 passed by the revisional court rejecting the revision filed against the order dated 2.4.2003.

(2.) Before coming to the merit of the case, some startling facts, which are borne out from the record, are required to be mentioned in the present case. This Court during vacation on 3.6.2004 issued notice on this petition and fixed 19.7.2004 as the next date for hearing on admission. It was also directed that till the date fixed in the case, charge should not be framed. Counter affidavit was filed by the C.B.I. and three days' time was granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. Vide order dated 19.7.2004, it was directed that the matter to be listed in the next week. However, the interim order dated 3.6.2004, which was limited till the next date of listing i.e. 19.7.2004, was not extended. The case was listed on 26.7.2004, but no order was passed. Thereafter, the case was not listed for almost an year and, therefore, the C.B.I. filed an application on 22.7.2005 for listing the present case for hearing. This Court vide order dated 25.7.2005 directed the case to be listed in the second week of August, 2005 and, disposed of the said application. On 11.8.2005 the case was listed, but no order was passed. Similar was the case on 8.11.2005. The C.B.I. thereafter, again moved an application on 16.2.2006 for listing of the case for hearing. This Court disposed of the said application on 20.2.2006 directing the case to be listed in the week commencing 27.2.2006. The case was listed on 28.2.2006, but no order was passed. The C.B.I. again moved an application on 6.9.2006 for listing the case at an early date. This Court vide order dated 8.9.2006 directed the matter to be listed in the next week. On 15.9.2006 the case was listed, but no order was passed. The C.B.I. thereafter, moved fourth application for listing of the case on 13.11.2006. This Court vide order dated 15.11.2006 noted that after 15.9.2006 the case was not listed and, therefore, directed the case to be listed in the last week of November, 2006. The case was listed on 29.11.2006, but no order was passed. On 16.3.2007 the C.B.I. moved fifth application praying for listing of the case for hearing at an early date. This Court vide order dated 19.3.2007 disposed of the said application directing the matter to be listed on its own turn. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 19.4.2007, but no order was passed. On 8.2.2008 the C.B.I. moved another application for listing of the case for hearing. The case was listed on 15.2.2008, but no order was passed. The C.B.I. again moved an application on 11.4.2008 for listing of the case for hearing, but none was present, therefore, vide order dated 21.4.2008 the case was directed to be listed in usual course. The case was listed on 4.7.2008, but no order was passed.

(3.) The C.B.I. thereafter, filed an application on 2.7.2008 for dismissal of the case. It was submitted by the C.B.I. that there were sufficient oral and documentary evidence available against the petitioner and, no case for quashing of the proceedings was made out. This application was listed on 1.8.2008, but no order was passed on the said application. On 1.9.2008 when the application for dismissal and the petition were listed before the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner sent illness slip to get the matter adjourned. On request of learned counsel for the C.B.I. the matter was directed to be listed in the next week. On 8.9.2008, the case was directed to be listed on the next date i.e. 9.9.2008 for hearing on the application for dismissal. On 9.9.2008 rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner and, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the C.B.I. were heard. Learned counsel for he petitioner, however, prayed for some time to file typed copy of the impugned order and, the Court directed that the matter to be listed in the next cause list to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to file typed copy of the order impugned in this petition.