D.C.Srivastava - (1.) THESE two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising out of the same charge-sheet having identical prayer can be disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE brief facts are that one Uma Shanker Sitani filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 325 of 1994 in the Supreme Court of India. Both the petitioners were not parties in the said writ petition. On 5.5.1995 a direction was issued by the Supreme Court, as contained in Annexure 1 of the Criminal Misc. Application of Sanjay Dalmia and in pursuance of this direction, first information report was registered by C.B.I. and the case was investigated. THE first information report was registered on 16.5.1995. In the said first information report, Rakesh Kumar Singh Chauhan, the petitioner in the other case, who was the then Sub-Inspector of police station Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad was named as an accused, besides S. R. Yadav, Inspector of Police S. H. O., police station Sahibabad, S.I. Mahendra Pal Singh of police station Sahibabad, constable Subhash Chandra Yadav of police station Sahibabad and other unknown persons, besides the petitioner Sanjay Dalmia. After investigating the case, C.B.I. submitted a charge-sheet against the two petitioners on 24.7.1996. In the said charge-sheet, it was found that the allegations against Inspector Sewak Ram Yadav, S. I. Mahendrapal Singh and constable Subhash Chandra Yadav could not be substantiated as nothing incriminating was found against them. Consequently, charge-sheet was not submitted against them. Inspector Dhruva Lal Yadav died during the course of investigation, hence no charge-sheet was submitted against him. THE charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Magistrate (C.B.I.), Dehradun, who considered the charge-sheet and the material on which the charge-sheet was submitted and ultimately through order Annexure 4 took cognizance against the two petitioners under Sections 120B, 193, 211, 218, 419, 469, 500, 468 and 420, I.P.C. and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners. The petitioner Sanjay Dalmia has challenged the order of the learned Magistrate and also the charge-sheet on the ground that the evidence disclosed against him in the charge-sheet is hardly sufficient for proceeding against him. In Paragraph 8 of the affidavit, the grounds mentioned against him in the charge-sheet, numbering three, have been enumerated. It is also said that Sanjay Dalmia, one of the petitioners was never interrogated by the Investigating Officer of C.B.I. and that he never entered any criminal conspiracy and that the charge-sheet has been submitted only to tarnish his image. The contention of the other petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh Chauhan has been that he discharged his duties as Investigating Officer honestly and that he did not commit any offence nor did he enter in any conspiracy, as alleged against him.
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit, the INvestigating Officer of C.B.I. has mentioned that sufficient evidence was collected against the two petitioners and that petitioner Sanjay Dalmia was interrogated on two dates, namely, 2.8.1995 and 3.11.1995 in the office of S. P., C.B.I., New Delhi by the INvestigating Officer along with a team of Officers. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length and the material on record was carefully examined. Sri Girdhan Nath, learned counsel representing C.B.I, argued that since only non-bailable warrant has been issued and charges have not been framed, hence no interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for. He cited number of authorities in support of his contention that in such matters, quashing of charge-sheet in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not justified.;