Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - (1.) The instant application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Case No. 954 of 2017 (CBI Vs. Radhyshyam and others), arising out of R.C. No. 0062014A0024, pending in the court of Special Judge,Anti Corruption, C.B.I. (West), Lucknow, under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for quashing of the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI (West), Lucknow in Case No. 954 of 2017 (CBI Vs. Radhyshyam and others) whereby Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI (West), Lucknow has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the applicant for the alleged offences committed under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 25.09.2017 filed by opposite party no.2 against the applicant under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under: 1. The applicant no.1 is a sole proprietorship firm carrying out its business in the name and style of M/s Riddhi Siddhi Udyog having its office at 238-A, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata (West Bengal) and applicant no.2 is the sole proprietor of the proprietorship firm i.e. applicant no.1. The applicant no.1 is a firm duly registered with the authorities including Central Sales Tax, Kolkatta Municipal Corporation and Income Tax Department. 2. The applicant no.1 firm is manufacturer of a product called as "Phosphoric Iron" (Medium Phosphorus) Brake Block. The aforesaid produce, namely, Phosphoric Iron (Medium Phosphorus) Brake Block is essential equipment installed in the Wheel of Railway Electric Locomotives. The product aforesaid is essential for the safety item required by the Indian Railways and in fact there is no purchaser of the product aforesaid in the country. 3. The product Phosphoric Iron (Medium Phosphorus) Brake Block is affixed behind the wheel of a locomotive for the purpose of braking. The product aforesaid is categorized as a safety item and the same is required to be manufactured as per the specifications issued by the Research Design and Standards Organization. The Phosphoric Iron (Medium Phosphorus) Brake Block is required to be manufactured in terms of Research Design and Standards Organization specification No. M&C/MTD/101/2007. 4. Research Design and Standards Organization, which is a unit of the Indian Railways is responsible for preparation of the designs and specifications of device safety item used in the Indian Railways including Locomotive and the Research Design and Standards Organization is also responsible for preparation of guidelines for registration and approval of vendors and safety items. The Research Design and Standards Organization has issued a guideline, known as RDSO Guidelines for Vendor's Approval (registration document No. QM-G-&.1-3), which has also been amended from time to time. 5. The CBI has filed chargesheet against the applicant no.2 on 20.09.2017, under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After filing of the chargesheet the Special Judge Anti Corruption has taken cognizance in the matter vide order dated 17.01.2018 and by the same order the applicant along with other persons has been summoned for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 6. Sri Arvind Varma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Advocate, appearing for the applicant contended that the impugned summoning order is totally illegal and the same has been passed on appreciation of wrong evidence without application of mind. He further contended that non application of mind on the part of Special Judge while passing the impugned order, which is evident and can be seen from the contents of the impugned order and further the Special Judge has taken cognizance in the case under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is also contended that applicant no.1 is a sole proprietorship firm and the applicant no.2 is the proprietor of applicant no.1. It is further contended that the impugned order of summoning has been passed in a routine manner against the applicant under sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 7. Sri Varma, further contended that entire investigation undertaken by CBI has been conducted by deliberately overlooking the various judgments/orders passed by Kolkatta High Court, whee almost all the allegations leveled in the FIR, followed by the chargesheet have been considered in detail. He also contended that list of documents appended along with the chargesheet does not mention any order passed by Kolkatta High Court, which supports and corroborates the very facts that investigation has been conducted deliberately overlooking and ignoring the various orders passed by the Kolkatta High Court. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that CBI acted in a most illegal manner and giving preference to hearsay evidence over the judicial verdict, the CBI filed chargesheet against the applicant on 20.09.2017. He also contended that the allegations regarding non existence of unit-1 of applicant no.1 firm are absolutely false and bogus and have got no legs to sand. The applicants are still supplying the material to the Indian Railways to its satisfaction as directed by the Kolkata High Court. 9. On the other hand Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel appearing of CBI has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant and stated that the contentions on behalf of the applicant, involves disputed question of facts and the said facts cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, the instant application deserves to be dismissed. 10. In reply to the submissions made on behalf of CBI, Sri Varma, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purpose of causing unnecessary harassment. 11. During the course of argument Sri Varma, Senior Advocate, has placed on record the medical report dated 16.02.2018 of the accused Rabindra Kumar Bhalotia proprietor M/s Riddhi Siddhi Udyog, which is taken on record. Perusal of medical report reflects that the accused-applicant Rabindra Kumar Bhalotia is suffering from brain stoke and the learned counsel for the applicant further undertakes that the applicant will appear before the court below within stipulated time. 12. All the contentions raised in this application by the applicant relates to disputed questions of fact. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. 13. Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the board principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject in its judgement in the case of Prabathbai Aahir @ Prabatbhai vs. State of Gujrat, 2017 9 SCC 641. 14. The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC(Cri) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked. 15. Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case. 16. The submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 17. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. 18. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. However, keeping in view the ailment of the accused-applicant no.2, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused-applicant no.2 may appear before the court below and apply for bail within ten weeks' from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application keeping inview the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.,2004 57 AllLR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 3 ADJ 322 (SC). 19. For a period of ten weeks' or till the date on which accused-applicant no.2 appears before the court below, whichever is earlier no coercive measure shall be taken/executed against the applicant no.2.;