Decided on September 25,2012

Bhushan Kumar Minocha Appellant
State And Another Respondents


Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THE order of cognizance dated 6.6.2012 adverts that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance only against accused Manoj and Shyam Lal, who were in caption that time. The name of petitioner Bhushan Kumar Minocha has not been mentioned by the Investigating Officer in Column No. 3 of the chargesheet, instead his name has been mentioned in column No. 2 as an absconding accused. Column No. 2 is the title indicating the accused who have not been Challaned. At the same time, the short facts, as also the finding of the Investigating Officer recorded in the remaining part of the chargesheet, indicates that the petitioner Bhushan Kumar Minocha along with the accused Virendra Singh and Chandra Mohan Minocha had their complicity for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 380, 201 and 120 -B IPC. They were hand in gloves with the accused persons who got their loans sanctioned of a huge amount as much as more than Rs. 5.00 crores from the Bank.
(2.) SRI Bhuvnesh Kumar, Inspector of the Criminal Investigation Department, Derhadun, who was the Investigating Officer of the case, before submitting chargesheet in the court, has moved application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, requesting the said Court that Mr. Chandra Mohan Arora, the then Chief Manager and Bhushan Kumar Minocha (petitioner), the then loan Manager also had their active complicity in commission of the said offences. So, he requested the Court to issue non -bailable warrants against those accused also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it was not necessary for the Investigating Officer to arrest the accused persons before submission of chargesheet against them. In other words, the arrest of the accused is not sine qua non for submission of the chargesheet. Thus, it was altogether a mischievous prayer on the part of the Investigating Officer praying to issue non -bailable warrants against the accused persons, more so when he was not specifically naming them along with those accused, against whom the chargesheet was submitted.
(3.) IN light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as have been discussed above, the Court feels it necessary to call the counter affidavit from Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar, the Investigating Officer, or his successor, whosoever may be in the office, to make the position clear whether he has submitted chargesheet against the petitioner Bhushan Kumar Minocha along with Chandra Mohan Arora and Virendra Singh along with other co -accused Manoj Kumar and Shyam Lal Dadhichi or not. In either case, he has to apprise the trial court about his categorical decision in the matter.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.