RAM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the petitioner, who at the relevant time was Sub-Registrar. Kanpur Nagar, who super annuated on 30-7-94, is to quash the first information report dated 16-1- 96 giving rise to registration of crime case No. 25 of 1996 P. S. Kotwali, town and District Kanpur Nagar under Sections 409/420/424/ 477-A/i 19/120,1. P. C. read with Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as contained in Annexure-3) and not to ar rest him in relation to the aforementioned crime case on several grounds stated in the writ petition.

(2.) IN the counter-affidavit, which has been sworn by Respondent No. 3, and a copy of which was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner on 23-2-97, to which no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, it has been stated, inter alia, that against the petitioner a vigilance en quiry was set up and major punishment was recommended; the petitioner due to mala fide intention had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and the rules framed there under in order to give illegal benefit to the parties and in their collusion with criminal intention to defraud the State Government of its revenue worth Rs. 36 crores approximate ly; that the offences alleged in the first information report have been made out; that the first information report was lodged on genuine grounds; that the an tecedents of the petitioner are not clean against whom many departmental en quiries were conducted; and that the al legations made in the writ petition are incorrect and thereby denied.

(3.) TO the statement made in the counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner, the petitioner has not even cared to file a rejoinder though it has been submitted by Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi that the Investigating Officer has not filed any counter. It is not the submission of tie learned counsel appear ing on behalf of the petitioner before us is that the Respondent No. 2 is the Inves tigating Officers Be that as it may, the first information report has been launched after a detailed enquiry on behalf of the State and we do not see any justifiable reason to exercise our discretionary juris diction in favour of the petitioner.