Rahul Chaturvedi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sri Anoop Trivedi assisted by Ramesh Chandra Agrahari,, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the records.
(2.) Today the date was fixed to consider and decide the recall application no. 3 of 2018 for recalling the earlier ex-parte order dated 10.01.2018 with a prayer to dismiss the instant application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., with cost. 3. Backgrounds of the Case :- (a) The applicants, namely, (i) Amir, (ii) Pappi, (iii) Tausif, (iv) Asim, all sons of Siddique, (v) Faraz s/o Shoeb, (vi) Mohd. Zain s/o Mohd. Asim, (vii) Guddu Gupta s/o Chunni Lal, (viii) Ayush Gupta s/o Guddu Gupta and (ix) Ranu Pal s/o Chandpal had jointly invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 passed by learned ACMM-VII, Kanpur Nagar in criminal case no. 7730 of 2017 (State Vs. Asim @ Pappu Smart and others) arising out of case crime no. 913 of 2015, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 506, 387, 420 and 120B IPC, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the aforesaid court. (b) During the initial arguments on 10.01.2018, it was canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants that Sandeep Shukla, private opposite party, after projecting himself as a RTI activist, managed to lodge the present FIR, levelling vague and sweeping allegations. The police, after conducting superficial investigation in the matter, submitted charge sheet on 22.10.2017 against the applicant whereupon learned Magistrate took mechanical cognizance of the offence under sections 467, 468, 471, 506, 387, 420 and 120-B IPC in Criminal Case No. 7730 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 913 of 2015 vide order. Aggrieved by the charge sheet, so submitted by the police, the applicants preferred Criminal Revision No. 329 of 2017 (Mohd. Amir and others v. State of U.P. And another), which also met the same fate and was dismissed on some erroneous ground by judgement and order dated 12.12.2017. (c ) During the course of entire argument it was never brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the applicants with regard to the fact that on earlier occasions, the aforesaid applicants approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filing Criminal Application u/s 482 No. 7490 of 2017 (Asim @ Pappu Smart s/o late Siddik v. State of U.P. And Sandeep Shukla), Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No. 7491 of 2017 (Tousif and others v. State v. State and Sandeep Shukla) and Criminal Application U/S 482 No. 10634 of 2017 (Ayush Gupta and another v. State of U.P. And others). It is remarkable that clandestinely, different learned counsel for the applicants in different innings of section 482 Cr.P.C. played gimmicks with the Courts i.e. in all the aforesaid applications various names of of the applicants find place in the same case crime number and sections wherein same liberties on same grounds have been mentioned whereupon vide different orders they managed to get limited liberty of surrendering themselves and getting bailed out. (A detailed synopsis of the all the aforesaid cases shall be extracted herein after). Astutely in paragraphs, 22, 23 and 24 of the affidavit accompanying the 482 application, only sweeping reference is being made about earlier proceedings without annexing copies of those orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier 482 applications.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants portrayed an innocent impression before this Court that present is first 482 Cr.P.C. application for the aforementioned prayer and as such on 10.01.2018 an ex-parte interim protection was passed in favour of all the applicants with a direction to the opposite party no.2 to file counter affidavit and thereafter rejoinder affidavit.;