STATE OF CHHATTISHGARH Vs. GOVINDLAL VORA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
GOVIND LAL VORA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)-THE aforesaid petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure (for short "the Cr. P. C. ")are being disposed of by this common order, as both these petitions are arising out of the same order dated 11th August, 2005 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, raipur, in Criminal Revision No. 65/2005.
(2.)BRIEF facts leading to filing of these petitions by the State, Govind Lal Vora and one Ajay Tiwari are that petitioner Govind lal was the President of Shiksha Pracharak samiti, Raipur (for short "the Samiti")during the period 1995 to 1998. During that period without any resolution of the Samiti or without seeking approval of any office bearer or the member of the Samiti he issued cheque Nos. 828685 and 828686 in favour of Pragati Prakashan on 4. 4. 1998 amounting Rs. 2,50,000 and Rs. 50,000. The said amount of Rs. 3,00,000 was deposited in the account of Pragati Prakashan of which govind Lal Vora was Managing Director. He got entries effected from the employee of Samiti that the said amount of rs. 3,00,000 has been advanced as loan to pragati Prakashan. However, an amount of rs. 50,000 was deposited back by Govind Lal vora through cheque in the account of samiti on 13. 7. 1998. When Moti Lal tripathi became President of the said samiti, he filed a complaint in the Court of judicial Magistrate against Govind Lal for commission of offence under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the I. P. C. " ). The said complaint was forwarded under Section 156 (3) of the cr. P. C. to Police Station Kotwali for registration of criminal case and investigation. After registration of the case and investigation, charge-sheet was filed against govind Lal Vora in his absence in the year 2002. On 23. 1. 2003 District Prosecution officer M. M. Chaturvedi filed an application under Section 321 of the Cr. P. C. for withdrawal of the prosecution, against which complainant Moti Lal Tripathi filed an objection against the said application.
(3.)AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties vide order dated 16. 12. 2004 learned chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application of the District Prosecution Officer on the ground that since the complaint has been filed by Moti Lal Tripathi, without his consent the District Prosecution Officer is not entitled to withdraw the prosecution.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.