- (1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet no.4 of 2016 dated 30.3.2016 arising out of R.C. No.1202015A0002 under sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station C.B.I., A.C.B, Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad as well as further proceedings of criminal case no.13 of 2016 (C.B.I. Vs. Tarun Uppal and others) pending in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Ghaziabad.
(2.) Heard Sri Mazhar Abbbas Zaidi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 - C.B.I. as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report was lodged in this matter on 13.12.2014. Bail was also granted to the applicant, but nothing was mentioned about the facts disclosed in the second FIR lodged on 25.4.2015. It was further submitted that there was no evidence on record to lodge the second FIR, but the C.B.I., on the basis of insufficient evidence, lodged the FIR, investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet. It was next submitted that cognizance taken in the matter is illegal. Trial could not be proceeded. Referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, 2013 6 SCC 348 and T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Others, 2001 6 SCC 181, learned counsel contended that there is a clear bar for lodging the second FIR on the basis of same set of facts. It was further contended that the version taken in the second FIR is the reproduction of the facts of the first FIR. Learned counsel also pointed out certain relevant documents at this stage in support of his contention and argued that trial cannot proceed against the applicant on the basis of confessional statement.;