Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42723 of 2018 Applicant :- Raghunandan Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Paul,Brij Bhushan Paul Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahboob Ahmad
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Mamoona Khatoon holding brief of Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case Crime No. 171/02 under Sections 193, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC and sections 13 (1) (D) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, PS. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi arising out of FIR No. 4 dated 18.06.20025 besides chargesheet dated 02.04.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the year 1992, the applicant was posted as Assistant Engineer at Varanasi and at that point of time, electricity sub-station was constructed at Sarnath, District Varanasi. For the purpose of construction of the said electricity sub-station, tenders were invited by the department for installation of iron checkered plates which was examined and finalized by a committee comprising of Member (Transmission), Member (Finance), Joint Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and Chief Engineer (Transmission). The tender was awarded in favour of M/s. Anand Trading Company and M/s. Awadh Trading Company, District Faizabad. As per the contract, M/s. Awadh Trading Company had installed checkered plates by contractor M/s. Awadh Trading Company at electricity sub-station, Sarnath, Varanasi measuring 50.15 kg per sq.mt. as per agreement entered into between the department and the contractor within permissible limits. He argued that after 11 years, at the behest of some persons who were prejudiced with the applicant and others,, weight of the said checkered plates were re-checked and the same was found to be 48.46 kg per sq.mt. viz. 3.69% less than its recorded weight at the time of installation. A departmental enquiry in the year 2002-2007 was initiated against the applicant, accordingly, the applicant was exonerated of the charges levelled against him by the Chairman of U.P. Power Corporation Limited vide order dated 11.02.2007.
He further argued that the present FIR which was lodged against the applicant and other accused persons with the allegations for which he was exonerated in the departmental enquiry and the chargesheet which has been submitted against him and the co-accused persons is liable to be quashed as he has been exonerated from the departmental enquiry by the competent Court. Hence, the aforesaid proceedings as well as the order taking cognizance and all the consequential proceedings including the NBW issued against the applicant be set aside. It is further stated that the applicant has already retired from service and is also suffering from old age problems. Hence, the NBW issued against him may be stayed so that he may appear before the trial Court. He lastly submits that arrest of the applicant has been stayed by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3908 of 2018.
Learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings of the present case as well as the impugned orders and has pointed out to the Court that co-accused Guru Dev Singh has approached this Court and challenged the chargesheet as well as the proceedings of the present case in application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C No.6411 of 2018 in which, quashing of the same was refused as the impugned chargesheet discloses a cognizable offence against the applicant and the same cannot be quashed on the ground that he has been exonerated during the course of the department proceedings and the present criminal proceedings has to be adjudged on the basis of evidence adduced against the applicant by the prosecution and the same cannot be quashed at its inception.
After having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court has already refused the quashing of the chargesheet and the procedings of the aforesaid case in the matter of the co-acused in the aforementioned case and has passed a detailed order thereon. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and prayer for quashing of the proceedings of the aforesaid case and all the consequential orders is hereby refused.
However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this application with a direction that for a period of two weeks from today, non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 27.11.2018/Madhurima