Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36464 of 2017 Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Irshad Husain, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No.2 of 2017, dated 17.6.2017, under Section 13(1) (5) read with Section 13(1) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Lal Kurti, District Meerut in Case Crime No.36 of 2011 in respect of the applicant only as well as order dated 7.7.2017 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Meerut in Case No.18/57/2017, State Vs. Ramesh Chandra Maurya and others, under Section 13(1) (5)/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, Police Station Lal Kurti, District Meerut in Case Crime No.36/2011, by which the applicant has been summoned in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at present the applicant is working as an Accountant in the office of District Inspector of School, Meerut and he has no role to play in the appointment of Class-IV employee appointed in Janta Inter College. Their appointments were made by the Principal of the said college after taking interview on 12.10.1996 and subsequently they have been appointed on 14.2.1996 in pursuance of which four Class-IV employee, namely, Ramveer Singh, Jasveer Singh, Jai Kumar and Dharmendra Kumar have joined their duties in the college vide joining letter dated 23.2.1996, 21.2.1996, 21.2.1996 and 21.2.1996 respectively.
The District Inspector of Schools after due inquiry has found the appointment of Class-IV employees done by the Principal of Janta Inter College and he vide order dated 30.1.2001 has directed for payment of salary to the aforesaid Class-IV employees to be recovered. In compliance of the order dated 30.1.2002 total amount of Rs.77,940/- was recovered from the fourth class employees and the aforesaid amount was deposited in the joint account of school in Allahabad Bank. It has been further submitted that the applicant is maliciously been dragged in the present case only because he is an Accountant and had no concern with the aforesaid four appointments. Applicant has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.7.2017. It has been lastly submitted that the applicant has got himself bailed out.
Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned chargesheet and summoning order and argued that the appointment made in the institution of the four Class-IV employees was in connivance with the Principal and Management of the said college and the said appointments were found to be against the establishment procedure. The salaries which were paid to the four employees were also recovered. The chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons after thorough investigation for the offence under Sections 417, 465, 468, 420, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 13 (1)(D) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 847 in the case of Sau Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar versus State of Maharashtra and others it has been held that the correctness of an allegation against the accused has to be decided only in trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is not open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contention made on behalf of the accused.
After having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned chargesheet and other material on record it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed against the applicant. Hence, the prayer for quashing of chargesheet and impugned order is hereby refused.
The application lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019/Deepika