Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2010
  6. /
  7. January

Vineet Ranjan Srivastava vs State Of U.P., Thru. C.B.I. (Acb), ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|22 June, 2010

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for the C.B.I. as well as perused the record.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the petitioner Vineet Ranjan Srivastava for quashing the summoning order dated 13.05.2010 including the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer arising out of FIR No. RC 0062007A0023/2007, Case No. 13 of 2010, State Vs K.K. Trivedi and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B read with Section 471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act pending in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption (West) C.B.I., Lucknow.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that C.B.I. registered a FIR against the bank employees for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found that one Phool Kali had applied for loan from the Union Bank of India, Secretariat Branch, Lucknow. The property to be mortgaged was valued by the accused Vineet Ranjan who is approved valuer of the Bank. The accused-petitioner on the basis of commercial rate as well as DM's circle rate assessed the value of the property to be mortgaged as Rs. 34.99 lacs. Thereafter, borrower had submitted document before the Bank and the loan was sanctioned. Thereafter, it was found that the borrower had obtained loan on the basis of forged documents. The Investigating Officer had found the involvement of the accused in the conspiracy, therefore, he was made accused during investigation. Learned counsel submits that the accused neither had cheated to any one nor had fabricated any document. He is not a public servant too. Therefore, prima facie, no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 471 I.P.C. as well as Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against the accused. Therefore, summoning order as well as charge sheet as against the accused-petitioner is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed the petition.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. may file detailed counted affidavit within two weeks. The petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter.
List immediately thereafter.
Till then, no coercive steps will be taken by the trial court to procure the attendance of the petitioner.
22.06.2010 Renu/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Vineet Ranjan Srivastava vs State Of U.P., Thru. C.B.I. (Acb), ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
22 June, 2010