- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) The instant petition has been filed by the applicants seeking a direction to the court below to quash the entire proceedings in case Crime No. 274 of 2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) Anti Corruption Act, police station Narhat, district Lalitpur whereby cognizance has been taken by the court below.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants contended that earlier the applicants have approached this Court by filing a 482 petition, which was numbered as 482 Petition No. 2398 of 2011. By an order dated 19.1.2011 passed by the another bench of this court whereby the applicants were directed to appear before the court below on the same day. Now the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet on 4.1.2011 and the cognizance was taken on 7.6.2011. At the stage of issuing process or taking cognizance the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material place on record only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC(Cri) 426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Cri) 192.;