Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1384 (ALL)

Yogesh Prakash Mittal v. State of U. P.

2016-04-13

RAMESH SINHA, VINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-III

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No.18 of 2011 State vs. Vinod Kumar Tripathi and others, arising out of Case Crime No.273 of 2001, under Sections 177, 218, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)D and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. South District Firozabad pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Meerut. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case the charge sheet against the applicant has been submitted in the year 2011 for the offence in question whereas the case pertains to the year 2001. He has further argued that in the year 2016 a supplementary charge sheet has also been filed in the matter against the applicant. Hence the prosecution of the applicant is wholly unwarranted. He submits that the applicant has already been granted bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has submitted that mere the fact that 10 years have elapsed and the matter is still pending against the applicant cannot be the ground for quashing the proceedings in view of the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in cases of Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 , Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. vs. NOIDA (2011) 6 SCC 508 and Ranjan Dwivedi vs. CBI, (2012) 8 SCC 495 , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the proceedings where offences are serious cannot be quashed on the ground of mere delay. 5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. 6. The prayer for quashing the criminal proceeding based on the charge sheet is hereby refused. 7. The application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.