- (1.) The applicants, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 17.12.2015 under section 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Partapur, District Meerut arising out of case crime no.362 of 2015 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, P.S. Partapur, District Meerut so far as the applicants is concerned. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings in case no.605/9/2016 under sections 420, 406 IPC arising out of aforesaid crime number. Heard Shri Madhu Mukul Tripathi, advocate assisted by Sri Ram Kishun Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anurag Khanna, senior advocate assisted by Ms. Gunjan Jadwani and Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that cognizance taken in the matter is illegal. There is no evidence at all on record to connect the applicants with the present matter. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants by the complainant or the witnesses interrogated under section 161 Cr.P.C. Applicants had approached this Court by way of filing a criminal misc. writ petition no. 19074 of 2015 in which the applicants' prayer was accepted and protection was given to them by staying the arrest of the applicants. Referring to the findings recorded in the said criminal misc. writ petition, it was contended that Gurnam Singh may be responsible for the said act, against whom allegation of cheating and misappropriation of amount obtained by illegally selling the licenses has been levelled. The amount said to be misappropriated, has been returned, hence there remains no cause of action to continue the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. It was further contended that licenses issued from the office of Foreign Trade Development were also received by Gurnam Singh, therefore, applicants cannot be made responsible for the offence levelled against them. Referring to annexure no. 14 of the application, it was argued that nothing is mentioned in this document to show the mens rea of the applicants to constitute the offences levelled against them. Learned counsel for the applicants also referred to several documents annexed with the application and also the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a case of no evidence. No forgery has been committed at all, as the signatures of opposite party no.2 are not denied by him. Next contention was that if the entire evidence collected during investigation are minutely analyzed, it is evident that witnesses have no source of knowledge about the offences levelled against the applicants. Date of offence is also not clear from the prosecution evidence. The amount, said to have been returned, was actually returned under pressure created by the police. Certificates were issued, signatures have not been denied by the opposite party no.2, hence transfer of the licenses was also not illegal.
(3.) In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P and Another, 2014 AIR(SC) 2567 as well as in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & others, 1992 AIR(SC) 604 and in the case of Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 AIR(SC) 1106 and submitted that on the basis of uncontroverted evidence available on record, a prima facie case is not established against the applicants and the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case is an abuse of process of law.;