Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) The aforesaid criminal revision and the petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., arise out of the same judgment and order, therefore, both the aforesaid cases are being decided together by a common judgment.
(2.) The matter in both the cases relate to embezzlement of money of Shram Nirman Sahkari Sangh, Lucknow which is a Cooperative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The criminal proceedings relating to both the aforesaid cases arose when the then Managing Director (Administration), Shri P.N. Singh Yadav lodged an FIR on 21.02.2012 with the Police Station Husainganj, Lucknow naming seventeen persons. However, the police registered the FIR only against two persons. Those persons were Chief Engineer and Accountant of the Society. The opposite party in Criminal Revision No. 348 of 2015 is Sushil Kumar Katiyar, who was neither named in the FIR nor the FIR was registered against him. He was elected Chairman of the Society. After a detailed investigation, charge -sheets were filed and in one of the charge -sheets, the opposite party Sushil Kumar Katiyar was also made accused. The total accused, who were charge -sheeted were fifteen in number. The charge against Sushil Kumar Katiyar was that he during his Chairmanship in the aforesaid Society appointed one Mr. Pradeep Singh, Advocate as his P.R.O, who with his connivance misappropriated funds of the Society. The allegation against one of the accused Pankaj Tripathi, General Manager (Administration) was that he along with other persons on 02.04.2011 gave bribery of Rs. 5.00 crores to Shri Badshah Singh, Minister. It was also alleged that the opposite party Sushil Kumar Katiyar provided his vehicle and armed guard to Pankaj Tripathi and thus committed the offence of abatement under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. Another allegation against the opposite party Sushil Kumar Katiyar is that Rs. 45.00 lacs bribery was given to Shri Babu Singh Kushwaha the then Minister and Rs. 10.00 lacs were given to Shri Ram Bodh Maurya, who was the then Director. The allegation against the opposite party is that he had participated in the payment of said bribe to these persons and, therefore, he also committed the offence of abatement under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Before the charge -sheet could be filed against the accused -persons, the opposite party Sushil Kumar Katiyar approached this Court for quashing of the FIR by means of filing Writ Petition No. 8114 (MB) of 2012. This writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 01.02.2013. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as below: - "We are of the view that it is always open to the State to move appropriate application before the court concerned seeking police custody of an accused at the time he surrenders before the court concerned. Accordingly, we accept the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and dispose of the writ petition with the direction that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and moves an application for bail in the aforesaid case crime number, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below. It is further provided that if the State moves any application seeking police custody of the petitioner, the same shall also be considered and disposed of at the time of consideration of application for bail moved by the petitioner, if any. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of finally."
(3.) After the charge -sheet was filed against the accused persons including Sushil Kumar Katiyar, he again approached this Court for quashing of the charge -sheet by way of filing a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc. Case No. 1964 of 2014. In this petition, it was alleged that the writ petition filed by him for quashing of the FIR was initially dismissed on 01.10.2012 against which the opposite party Sushil Kumar Katiyar approached Hon'ble the Apex Court by way of filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8414 of 2012, which was disposed of on 30.11.2012 and the order dated 01.10.2012 passed by this Court was quashed and this Court was directed to decide the matter afresh and pass order giving reasons. Thereafter, the writ petition once again came up for hearing and this time by the order dated 01.02.2013 referred to above, the writ petition was disposed of.;