Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Dhaka vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98696
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 51177 of 2014
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Dhaka
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Rai,Bablu Singh,M J Akhtar,Sri Kamal Krishna
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Birendra Singh,Syed Irfan Ali
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri V.M.Chaubey, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri M.J.Akhtar, learned counsels for applicant and Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State.
2. Present application has been preferred with a prayer to stay/quash the proceedings of Case no. 2114/2014 (State Vs. Seema Yadav & others) arising out of Case Crime no. 495/2014 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Budh Nagar so far as they relate to the applicant and or pass such other and further order as may be deemed to be fit and proper in the facts and circumstances.
3. It is the case of the applicant that initially FIR has been registered under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C bearing Case Crime no. 495 of 2014 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar wherein charge sheet has been preferred after detailed inquiry against applicant along with two other co-accused. However, the case of the applicant is entirely different, he had been the Chief General Manager of Indraprastha Gas Limited (IGL) a joint venture of Gail India Limited and BPCL, Goverment of NCT Delhi who is having no role in the alleged offence as indicated through the charge-sheet. Learned senior counsel submitted that it is only the company who provided the gas connection to one of the co-accused i.e. Ms. Seema Yadav at the address F-1, Alfa-II, Greater Noida, U.P and in fact she is having some dispute with the opposite party no. 2. The role of the applicant has been entirely misunderstood and taken by concerned IO by way of filing the charge-sheet which impugned the present application.
4. Learned senior counsel also submitted that at the admission stage co-ordinate Bench of this Court protected the interest in shape of order dated 21.01.2015 through which the entire proceeding arising out of Case no. 2114 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime no. 495 of 2014 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC has been stayed.
5. During pendency of the instant petition/application, counter-rejoinder has already been exchanged through which it has been transpired that the role of the applicant is limited under the capacity of the Head of the Institution who provided the gas connection to the co-accused and as such the matter is not related directly against the applicant in which it has been instituted and implicated the other co-accused.
6. Per contra, Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application by way of indicating the certain documents which were alleged to be forged in nature upon which the connection has been provided by the applicant. For strengthening the arguments, Sri Virendra Singh relied upon two judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh Etc. decided on 10.04.2023 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 @ SLP (CRL.) NOS. 12794-12795 of 2022 and case of Priti Saraf & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. decided on 10.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal nos. 296 of 2021 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6364 of 2019.
7. In reply to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, it has been informed by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the connection which has already been extended has been terminated and there is hardly any connection available with the co-accused provided by company which has been headed by the applicant.
8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances charge-sheet and entire proceeding of Case no. 2114/2014 (State Vs. Seema Yadav & others) arising out of Case Crime no. 495/2014 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Budh Nagar, specifically against applicant are hereby set aside and quashed.
9. Application u/s 482 stands allowed accordingly.
10. Disconnect Application u/s 482 nos. 48933 of 2014 and 48937 of 2014 from the instant application.
Order Date :- 28.5.2024
Shaswat
