Digvijay Nath Tewari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned discharge order and entire criminal proceedings regarding alleged corruption and misappropriation under MCNREGS. The Court held the charge sheet substantiated a prima facie case and refused the plea.
What did the court decide?
Prayer for quashing refused; Applicant granted liberty to surrender within four weeks and seek bail; No coercive action for four weeks.
What the court decided
1
Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. - 3781 of 2020
Applicant :- Digvijay Nath Tewari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
- Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation and learned A.G.A. for the State.
- The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 6, Lucknow as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 220 of 2017 (CBI Vs. Digvijay Nath Tiwari & others), under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 & 471 I.P.C. and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending before the court of Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 6, Lucknow.
- From the record, it appears that initially the applicant had approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Application (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 6141 of 2019 (Digvijay Nath Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and Others) assailing the Charge-sheet as well as the entire criminal proceedings. The said application under Section 482 was disposed of vide order dated 15.02.2019 by this Court granting liberty to the applicant to move discharge application before the concerned court below and to furnish personal bond in view of Section 88 of Cr.P.C. The concerned court below was also directed to dispose of the said discharge application within two months, if filed.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the discharge application is perverse and contrary to settled law warranting quashing of the entire criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether there is sufficient evidence on record to form a prima facie case against the applicant for the prescribed offences.
Whether the defence materials and credibility of documents can be analyzed at the stage of considering an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Digvijay Nath Tewari
- respondent
State Of U.P.
- respondent
Central Bureau of Investigation
- respondent
3 Others
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/3781/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court