N.K. JANOO Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Application U/S 482 has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 20.7.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Criminal Case No. 1454 of 2014 (Shyam Kishore Shukla Vs. N. K. Janoo, D.F.O.) arising out of case crime no. 317 of 2014, under Sections 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC, Police Station Tajganj, district Agra. Further prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.

(2.) Heard S/Sri Vimlendu Tripathi and Vikas Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the applicant; Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A.

(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that cognizance order passed in the matter is illegal and has also been passed without applying judicial mind. Initially on the basis of order passed on the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. FIR was lodged and concerned Investigating Officer after investigation submitted final report. Thereafter protest petition was filed by the complainant/opposite party no. 2. Concerned Magistrate considering the extraneous facts and evidence annexed with the protest petition rejecting the final report took cognizance straightaway in the matter against the applicant. It is further argued that if entire prosecution case is taken into consideration, the alleged act for which present prosecution has been started, comes under the purview of discharge of official duty. Thus, prosecution against the applicant was barred by the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. as Investigating Officer has not obtained prior sanction of the competent authority. It is also argued that concerned Magistrate in the impugned order has clearly discussed the evidence which was not part of the case diary nor collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Apart to this, concerned Magistrate has taken into consideration the documents/facts which were annexed with the protest petition. It is also argued that documents annexed with the case diary by the Investigating Officer during investigation were in support of the applicant. There was clear evidence regarding supply of pindi plants. Observations recorded by the concerned Magistrate under the impugned order is illegal and based on extraneous material. It is next contended that one departmental enquiry was also conducted in the present matter and allegations levelled against the applicant was found false. Thereafter he was exonerated in the enquiry which was never challenged and has attained finality. Since State Government itself did not find the allegations levelled against the applicant true and departmental enquiry started against the applicant was dropped, therefore, on the strength of same set of facts continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case will be abuse of process of law. It is also argued that departmental enquiry itself was initiated against the opposite party no. 2 regarding preparation of the forged documents. Thus, referring to the entire facts mentioned in the affidavit as well as documents annexed with the application, it was further argued that continuation of the proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is abuse of process of law. Thus, prayer was made to allow the application and to quash the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case.