S C SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are six petitions under Section 482 CrPC (details given below), which I propose to dispose off together as they raise similar questions of law and fact. 1.Petition no. 1655 of 1979. Filed by Suresh Chandra Srivastava for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 167 of 1975. 2.Petition no. 1656 of 1979.-Filed by Suresh Chandra Srivastava for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 168 of 1975. 3.Petition no. 1657 of 1979.-Filed by Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Bis- han Swarup for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 169 of 1975. 4.Petition no. 1690 of 1979.-Piled by Shanker Lal Bhargava for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 167 1975. 5.Petition no. 1691 of 1979.-Piled by Shanker Lal Bhargava for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 168 of 1975. 6.Petition no. 1692 of1979.--Filed by Shanker Lal Bhargava for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 169 of 1975.

(2.) FROM the above it will thus appear that the arrangement of various persons as accused in the aforesaid three cases are as follows :- 1.Cr. Case no. 167 of 1975. (1) Suresh Chandra Snvastava, (2) Shanker Lal Bhargava. 2.Cr.Case no. 168 of 1975. (1) Suresh Chandra Srivastava, (2) Shanker Lal Bhargava. 3.Cr. Case no. 169 of 1975. (1) Suresh Chandra Srivastava, (2) Shanker Lal Bhargava, (3) Bishan Swarup.

(3.) ALL the three persons-Shanker Lal Bhargava, Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Bishan Swarup-were summoned by C. J. M. ALLahabad to stand their trial in the cases referred to above. They put in appearance in court and raised a preliminary objection to the framing of charges against them. They contended that no charge could be framed against them in any of the three cases because the very institution of these cases against them was illegal and not in accordance with law. They pleaded the bar of Section 195 CrPC against their prosecution. The learned Magistrate repelled their objection in all the cases and ordered that charges shall be framed against them according to the allegations and evidence on record. They felt dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Magistrate and challenged the correctness of the same in this court by filing petitions nos. 1655 of 1979, 1656 of 1979, 1657 of 1979, 1690 of 1979, 1691 of 1979 and 1692 of 1979 as mentioned above.