AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Viney Mittal, J.—The present petition u/s 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR No. 62 dated November 19, 1999 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Patiala, Distirct Patiala for offences u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC.
The reply to aforesaid criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by Gurmukh Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh by way of affidavit dated August 3, 2001.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit, Shri Bipan Ghai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this present petition and in case need arises a liberty be granted to them to file an appropriate application before the learned Special Judge for dropping of the Criminal proceedings against the petitioners or for their discharge in accordance with law.
I find that the stand taken by Shri Ghai is very just and fair. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the learned Special Judge for dropping of the criminal proceedings or their discharge. While filing the aforesaid application, the petitioners would be well within their right to take up all such pleas, which have been raised by them in the present petition and all other defence which are available to them in accordance with law before the Special Judge. If any such application is filed by the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is received by them, then the learned Special Judge shall decide the same on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
It is further directed that the personal presence of the petitioners before the learned Special Judge shall remain exempted during the course of trial. However, it shall be open to the learned Special Judge to secure the personal presence of the petitioners as and when the same is required in accordance with law.
Since the matter has remained pending in this Court for a sufficiently long time, therefore, the learned Special Judge is directed to conclude the proceedings in the case as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than July 31, 2004.