Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 40 (ALL)

Mahesh Chand Tyagi v. State of U. P.

2022-01-07

RAJIV GUPTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Gupta,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dt. 28.11.2018 as well as cognizance orders including N.B.W. dt. 18.10.2019 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge Prevention of Corruption, Meerut in case crime No. 222 of 2014, State Vs. Mahesh Chand Tyagi,under section 7/13 (1) (E) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988, P.S. Agauta, District Bulandshahar. 3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that a vigilance inquiry was made against the applicant and an enquiry report dated 5.8.2017 has been submitted stating there-in that he had amassed huge wealth by illegal means which was disproportionate to his known source of income. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention, as such, charge sheet be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, charge sheet cannot be quashed. 6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the fact of the case, at this stage, it can not be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and lastly M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pv.t Ltd Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and lastly M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pv.t Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 7. The prayer for quashing the charge sheet is therefore refused. 8. However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is finally disposed of.