High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashwini Garg vs State of Uttarakhand & another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 15 December 2017 · Citation: (2017) 12 UK CK 0032

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhanshu Dhulia
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-482>Section 482</a> - Saving of inherent powers of High Court · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-120B>Section 120B</a>, <a href=1767-420>Section 420</a>, <a href=1767-468>Section 468</a>, <a href=1767-471>Section 471</a> - Punishment of criminal conspiracy - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Forgery for purpose of cheating - Using as genuine a forged document · <a href=6460>Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988</a>, <a href=6460-13>Section 13(2)</a>, <a href=6460-13>Section 13(1)(d)</a> - Criminal misconduct by a public servant - Criminal misconduct by a public servant
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
1748 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 245 words
1.

Mr. Vikas Deep Jain, Advocate, present for the applicant.

2.

Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent No.1.

3.

Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, present for the respondent No.2/CBI.

4.

A first information report has been lodged by respondent No.2 against the present applicant, which has been registered as FIR No.RC0072015A0006 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B / 420 / 468 / 471 of IPC read with Sections 13 (2), 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station CBI SPE, Dehradun. After investigation, police submitted the charge sheet against the present applicant under Sections 120B / 420 / 477A of IPC read with Sections 13(2), 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, the learned court below took cognizance in the matter and issued summon against the applicant. Hence, the applicant has filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

4.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is being called for by this Court in the matter.

5.

However, the applicant would be at liberty to move an application for his bail before the court concerned, which shall be considered, as far as possible, on the same day itself on its merit, in accordance with law, considering the fact that the applicant is an Additional General Manager in BHEL.

6.

With the aforesaid observation, the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stands disposed.