Alok Mishra vs State Of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.—This Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the Case No. 6329/06 arising out of Case Crime No. 191/2006 under sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. PS. Panki Kanpur Nagar. Heard Learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was an employee and working as clerk in the office of M/s K.C.K. Export Ltd. The functioning of the company was not satisfactory, even voice was raised by the employees including the applicant that the employees were not being paid even minimum salary. The Company was put in D-Grade category. Since the complainant was annoyed, hence on the basis of the False allegation the First Information Report was lodged with the allegation that the applicant being Manager of the Company appointed certain persons and misappropriated the amount. In fact neither the applicant was Manager nor he was authorised to appoint any person in the Company nor he appointed nor the amount was collected and misappropriated. During investigation his arrest was stayed but without any reliable materials the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet. Now warrant has been issued, hence the charge sheet as well as the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.

Learned A.GA. opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that in view of the allegation prima facie commission of offence is disclosed against the applicant.

Considering the submissions of the parties, nature of the allegation if the contention of the applicant is correct, then no offence is made against the applicant. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is disclosed. The defence of the applicant has to be examined on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties at appropriate stage.

However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicant appears before the court concerned within three weeks from today and applies for bail, it is expected that the same shall be considered and disposed off expeditiously, in view of the guide lines by Full Bench decision of High Court in case of Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . In view of the aforesaid case, if due to any reason the bail application could not be disposed off same day, the applicant may be released on interim bail.

For a period of three weeks, the non bailable warrant issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance.

It is further directed that if the applicant moves a discharge application before the court concerned, through counsel within thirty days from today, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation this application filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off finally.