Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41357 of 2018 Applicant :- S.I. Narendra Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harindra Prasad
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav counsel for the applicant and Sri Harindra Prasad counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasia learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.07.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Ghaziabad and order of non bailable warrant dated 25.09.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Special Court No. 2 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut in Complaint Case No. 03 of 2009 new Complaint Case No. 16 of 2018 (Zamaluddin vs. S.I. Narendra Singh Yadav), under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Masoori, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the court which has been passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence in question at District Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction for the same as the case is under the Anti Corruption and the Court of Anti Corruption at Meerut had power to take cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover the required sanction of prosecution of the applicant has also not been obtained from the Competent Authority. Hence the order taking cognizance may be set aside.
Sri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. has admitted the said fact as has been argued by the counsel for the applicant.
Sri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also categorically stated before the Court at the statement at Bar that he has no objection if the proceedings of the present case is hereby quashed. Subject to the condition that if required sanctioned under the Section 19 of the P.C. Act is obtained against the applicant for his prosecution from the Competent Authority. The Competent Court may be at liberty to proceed against the applicant.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and particularly the fact that the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. has admitted that the required sanction for prosecution of the application has not been obtained from the Competent Authority in view of the provisions contained under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further the Court which has taken cognizance of the offence in the absence of the same was also not having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence hence the order taking cognizance and further proceedings in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed, subject to the condition that if any such sanction for prosecution of the applicant is obtained from the Competent Authority under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 the Competent Court is at liberty to proceed against the applicant.
In view of the above, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Rohit