1. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of chargesheet bearing number 7 of 2014 dated 30.4.2014 in RC No.5(S) of 2012 under Section 120-B, read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station CBI/STF/ND (Annexure No.1), submitted before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Lucknow. The petition further seeks quashing of order dated 2.7.2014 (Annexure-2) taking cognizance of the offence in regard to the petitioner.
2. Sri Akhilesh Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has given the background of facts to state that it appears that Y.M.C.A. Property located in Lucknow was subject matter of a civil suit, wherein one Raju alias Anil S/o Shiv Bux R/o 29/6 Rana Pratap Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow was the substituted plaintiff and claimed himself to be owner of the property at issue. The suit was decreed in about five months. Decree came to be challenged before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.6750 (MB) of 2010 (National Council of Y.M.C.A.'s of India Vs. State of U.P. and others). Prior to filing of the writ petition, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also made before the civil court by Y.M.C.A. The writ petition was allowed vide a detailed judgment dated 2nd of February, 2012 with costs. Decree was quashed.
3. Perusal of the judgment rendered by the writ court indicates that the District Judge, Lucknow was also asked to conduct an enquiry in regard to the fact whether or not fraud on court had been committed. C.B.I. was also asked to hold an enquiry as regards the allegations of grabbing properties situated in prime locations of the city of Lucknow. C.B.I. was further directed to conduct enquiry in view of report of District Judge, Lucknow dated 23rd of November, 2010 and proceed in accordance with law.
4. It appears that investigation has concluded resulting in filing of the chargesheet.
5. Shri Akhilesh Kalra, Advocate, has referred in extenso to paras 32 to 40 of the chargesheet that deals with the alleged role played by the petitioner, who was the counsel for Raju alias Anil in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. In the contention of Sri Kalra, the Court directed the petitioner to produce Raju alias Anil, the person who had engaged the petitioner. The person was produced. In such circumstances, no fault can be found in the conduct of the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that even in the enquiry conducted by the Sessions Judge, same person had appeared as Raju alias Anil. Only Raju alias Anil could have been made the accused, and not the counsel, i.e. the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. prays for very short time to file a short affidavit in regard to culpability of the petitioner, and material collected during investigation indicating commission of offence, even by the petitioner.
8. List on 4.8.2014.
Order Date :- 21.7.2014 A.Nigam