Allahabad High Court
Vipin Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 August, 2016
Bench: Abhai Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22198 of 2016
Applicant :- Vipin Pratap Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Harshita Raghuvanshi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by applicant - Vipin Pratap Singh with the prayer that charge - sheet no. 01 / 2016, dated 25.05.2016, under Sections 419, 468, 471, I.P.C and consequential proceedings of Case No. 2417 of 2016 - (State Vs. Vipin Pratap Singh), pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 1953 of 2014, under Sections 419 & 420 I.P.C, Police Station - Kotwali Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, may be quashed and further proceeding of the case may be stayed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that applicant proceeded on casual leave after getting it sanctioned from the concerned authority and he rejoined his services one day delayed upon that an inquiry was conducted and accordingly he was punished for "no work no pay" for two days. Later on it was revealed that sanction order of casual leave by the concerned authority was procured by forging signature of the concerned authority and after an inquiry, first information report was lodged against the applicant and consequently charge-sheet has been submitted. It is also submitted that F.I.R was lodged against the applicant due to ulterior motive and he was already punished for two days as "no work no pay" and again action has been initiated against him. It is further submitted that during the investigation it is found that forged signature was not done by the applicant although it was found that signature was also not made by the concerned authority and in the circumstances it can be said that applicant is not responsible for the forged order.
From the facts it can not be said that no case is made out against the applicant. There is an order that is said to forged one and was not issued by the competent authority. Charge-sheet has been submitted after investigation. It is vehemently argued that charge is not made out and consequently proceeding be quashed.
In the circumstances, it is ordered that in case within fifteen days from today if the applicant appears before the court concerned and moves an application for discharge, the same may be disposed of after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties and such application will be decided as per law prescribed. Till the disposal of such application no coercive action will be taken against the applicant, he will be allowed to appear before the court either personally or through his counsel during this period.
Issue notice to respondents. They may file counter affidavit within four weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List immediately thereafter.
Order Date :- 01.08.2016.
Vinod.
