AINUL HAQUE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the inherent powers of this court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( in short the 'Code'), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 08.05.2001 and the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by learned Special Judge,C.B.I.(A.H.D.) Ranchi in R.C.Case no.47(A) of 1996.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary for the proper adjudication of this case,in short, is that after institution of the aforesaid case, the investigation was finally handed over to the Central Bureau Investigation( in short C.B.I.), Ranchi and on completion of investigation, the C.B.I. filed the charge -sheet on 08.05.2001. Whereafter cognizance of the offence was taken by the court against several accused persons, including this petitioner to face trial under sections 409/420/467/468/471/472/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 13(2) read with section 3(1) (c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order taking cognizance the petitioner filed W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2007 in this court with prayer to quash the F.I.R., charge -sheet and the order taking cognizance dated 08.05.2001, but later on petitioner preferred to withdraw the said writ petition which was allowed and the writ was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.04.2008, with liberty to raise all the points before the concerned court. Apparently, the order taking cognizance was challenged by the petitioner earlier also before this court. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition before the court concerned for his discharge in the light of the observation made by this court and the said petition was dismissed as not maintainable by the concerned court vide order impugned dated 30.10.2010 holding that the charges against the petitioner and other accused persons have already been framed vide order dated 26.09.2005 i. e. much before filing of the petition for discharge and several witnesses have been examined and the petitioner is dismissed as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner field the instant application with prayer to quash the said order, including the order taking cognizance dated 08.05.2001 and the entire criminal proceeding. It is pertinent to mention here that by order dated 04.04.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 48 of 2007, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the writ petition relying on the fact that number of witnesses had already been examined with liberty to raise all the points before the court below,which have taken in this writ application. So factually, in the year 2008 itself several witnesses had been examined and after the said order several other witnesses have been examined by the court and in the midst of examination of prosecution witnesses, petitioner filed the said petition for his discharge.