Court No. - 46
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13068 of 2005 Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar,Amit Daga,Rajiv Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Government Advocate
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
On the case being taken up, no-one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to address the Court. Even on the earlier occasion on 16.1.2019, the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the applicant. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State is present.
The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 18.7.2005 whereby the discharge application of the application has been rejected and also the consequential order framing the charges against the applicant passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Meerut in Special Case No.12/2004 under section 13(1)(E) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, arising out of Case Crime No.310/2002 PS.Civil Lines, Meerut, Under Sections 13(1)(E) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The present application has been hanging since the year 2005. Since no interim order is operating in favour of the applicant, the charges have been framed against the applicant hence the court below would have proceeded with the matter. There is no valid reason to keep the present petition pending sine die.
Learned AGA contended that the orders passed by the court below do not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity or vulnerability. The long pendency of the present application would outweigh the interest of justice.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments of the learned AGA for the State, it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against the applicant. Cognizance was already taken by the trial court and the charges have also been framed as such the court below would have proceeded with the matter hence the prayer for quashing orders impugned is refused. At the stage of issuing process or framing charges the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record. Only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines in the case State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC(Crl) 426, and State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Crl) 192.where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power envisaged under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any justifiable ground for quashing orders impugned in the aforesaid case in exercise of its inherent powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is directed that in case applicant appears before the court concerned in the aforesaid case within 30 days and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 RK