Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46733 of 2018 Applicant :- Annapurna Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Mehrotra,Vibhav Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Irshad Hussain, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.9.2018 passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Court No. 2, Gorakhpur in case crime no. 149 of 2017 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 I.P.C. and 3, 13, 15 P.C. Act dismissing the protest petition filed by the applicant and final report has been accepted.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was selected as Assistant Teacher in district Gorakhpur but when no heed was paid, the applicant sent various complaints to the authorities indicating the aforesaid facts against opposite party no. 2 and with great difficulty payment was released in January, 2017. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the C.J.M., Gorakhpur on which direction was issued by the Magistrate concerned, a case was registered against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as case crime no. 149 of 2017 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 I.P.C. and 3, 13, 15 P.C. Act. During the investigating, the investigating Officer recorded the statements of the applicant and his wife and also some officials of the Office of B.S.A., who are pocket witnesses of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and on the basis of their statements, the investigating officer submitted final report in the matter against which the applicant moved a protest petition but the learned Magistrate brushing aside the objection raised by the applicant accepted the final report by passing the impugned order solely on the ground that there is no eye witness found during investigation verifying the demand of bribe by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 which is bad in the eyes of law, hence the same is liable to be quashed.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned order as well as the material brought on record, we are of the view that the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, hence requires no interference by this Court in its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The application lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 20.12.2018/Shiraz