Court No.

- 42

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29227 of 2017

Applicant :- Anil Puri

Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation
Counsel for Applicant :- Pratik Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Misra

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

Heard Sri Aditya Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit
Misra, learned counsel for the C.B.I and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer
to quash the entire proceedings pending before Special Judge, Anti
Corruption, CBI Court-1, Ghaziabad in case no.07/2016 (C.B.I. Vs. M/s
Rajat Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and others) and to allow the present application and
also call for the records from the concerned court and set-aside the
impugned order dated 23.1.2017, passed by Special Judge, Anti
Corruption, CBI Court 1 Ghaziabad to the extent of taking cognizance
against the applicant u/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, and 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the petitioner
has challenged the impugned charge sheet, copy of which is annexed with
supplementary affidavit. He has drawn attention of the Court towards para
no.27 of the supplementary charge sheet regarding allegations made
against him which is being quotted here below:-
"Shri Anil Puri (A-6)- He was employee of M/s IEDL. He was a close
associate of Shri Sudhir Kumar Kaura. At his instructions, Shri Anil
Kumar had written the contents in forged amendments and acceptances of
the bills drawn under forged amendments. He is also authorized signatory
of the account of M/s IEDL."

He further submits that as per allegations, the applicant happens to be the

close associate of Sudhir Kumar Kaura who was the Director of M/s
International Electrol Devices Limited and he is still absconding since
2012. As per instructions of the applicant, one Anil Kumar co-accused had
prepared some documents which was found to be forged one. He submits
that vague allegations have been made against the applicant and charge
sheet does not speak any further allegations in order to show that there was
any such instructions by the applicant to co-accused Anil Kumar for
preparing such document. He submits that no offence against the applicant
is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide
intention for the purposes of harassment.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer for
quashing and submitted that non-bailable warrant has already been issued
against the applicant. The applicant is already confined in jail in another
case being R.C.No.8005 of 2012, P.S. C.B.I, ACB, Ghaziabad. Moreover,
it appears that trial is in progress. There has been Bank fraud for
interference by this Court at this stage as it would amount to prejudice the
trial though cognizable offence is disclosed against the applicant.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the
case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the
applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed
questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the
light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs.
State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal,
1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192
and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq
and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
The prayer for quashing the cognizance order as well as entire criminal
proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.

(Aniruddha Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 5.9.2017

Gaurav