Amar Saran - (1.) -Heard Shri Mohammad Yusuf, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gurfam Ali, who has filed his appearance slip on behalf of opposite party No. 3 and learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) THIS application has been filed with the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings in Case Crime No. 386 AU of 2006, under Section 420/406/409, I.P.C. police station Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur, (although subsequently, learned counsel for the applicant submits that Section 409, I.P.C. has wrongly been inserted) which was pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur and also for withdrawing the proceedings in Case Crime No. 156 of 2007, under Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangsters Act. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant is a retired B.D.O. and 72 years in age and hence the affidavit filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur regarding the compromise dated 12.12.2006 be accepted and the complainant may be permitted to compound the said offence. The allegations in the F.I.R. were that the applicant was an authorised agent in the head post office, Saharanpur. He got two M.I.S. accounts for Rs. 54,000 opened of the complainant and after the period was completed on 29.4.2006, the complainant gave two pass-books to the applicant for return of the money as he wanted to deposit the said amount in another M.I.S. account, but in spite of repeated demands he was not given the new pass-book. After some time the complainant learnt that there has been a major scam at the post office and the accused persons have absconded. When he approached the bank authorities, he was told by Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Clerk and Shri Brij Bhushan Pal, the Assistant Post Master that amounts above Rs. 20,000 are returned only by cheque. However, the applicant collusively obtained cash with the help of the aforesaid two officials.
(3.) IN the F.I.R. under the Gangsters Act, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 against ten accused persons, one of whom is the applicant at serial No. 5, the allegations were that the accused in the Gangsters Act formed an unlawful gang and by cheating and forgery, they embezzled large sums of money from unwary investors. So far as the other accused are concerned, they are involved in a large number of cases. It is true that so far as the applicant is concerned, he is said to be involved in one case, but as it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Subhash v. State, 1998 All JIC 394 : 1998 (2) ACR 1267 and Kishan Pal alias K. P. v. State of U. P., 2006 (54) ACC 1015 : 2006 (2) ACR 1254, that even for a single incident if the totality of the circumstances suggest the commission of an offence under the Gangsters Act, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act can lie.;