Dismissed

Radhey Shyam v. Union of India. Thru. Home Secy. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2024A482/8039/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the framing of charges in a corruption case. The court refused quashing because the applicant's earlier petition for high reliefsavait had been dismissed by the High Court and confirmed by the Apex Court without merits, and because quashing would contradict the Supreme Court's direction to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge sheet and framing of charges is dismissed.

Radhey Shyam Vs Union of India. Thru. Home Secy. and 2 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81475

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8039 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Opposite Party :- Union Of India. Thru. Home Secy. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- In Person Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I.,Anurag Kumar Singh,Shiv P. Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, the applicant, who appears in person and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶8

"For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Learned Special Judge Anti Corruption CBI (West) Lucknow by virtue of which Charges are framed against the applicant in Criminal Case No. 954 of 2017 arising out of the Charge Sheet dated 20.09.2017 in FIR No. RC0062014A0024 dated 07.08.2014 at Police Station CBI/ACB/LUCKNOW under sections 120-B r/w Ss 420, 468, 471, & 201 I.P.C and S 13(2) r/w S 13(1)(d) PC Act 1988,

¶9

Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed."

¶10

At the very outset, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.5 of the application, which is an order dated 15.07.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.310 of 2020, Radhey Shyam Retd. Executive Director M And C RDSO Vs. U.O.I. through Home Secretary Min. of Home Affairs and 2 Ors., which was dismissed by this Court with the observation that the detailed evaluation of the evidence/ material is not required at the revisional stage. In para-2 of the order, the prayer has been quoted and in paras 20 & 21, the order has been passed, which reads as under:-

¶11

"2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 CrPC has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd January, 2020 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, West, Lucknow, rejecting application of the revisionist for discharge filed under Section 227 CrPC in Criminal

¶12

Case No.954 of 2017, arising out of RC0062014A0024, under Sections 120-B IPC read with Sections 420/468/471 and 201 IPC and Sections 13(2) and Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow.

¶13

20. The facts, in brief, have been stated in preceding paragraphs of this order. From the allegations against the revisionist, which are part of the charge-sheet, it cannot be said that no prima facie case exists against the revisionist. At the time of framing of charge/considering discharge application the Court is required to consider the material/evidence available on record to find out whether strong suspicion arises to form an opinion as to the existence of prima facie case against the accused or not. Detailed evaluation of the evidence/material is not required at this stage. This Court is in agreement with the view of the learned trial Court that there is sufficient evidence/material available against the accuserevisionist, which raises strong suspicion regarding his involvement in commission of the offence and supports the charge prima facie for which the charge-sheet has been filed.

¶14

21. In view thereof, this Court does not find that the trial Court has committed any error of jurisdiction or law which requires interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and, therefore, this revision, being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed."

¶15

Challenging the aforesaid order dated 15.07.2022, the applicant filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9268 of 2022, Radhey Shyam Vs. Union of India & Ors., before the Apex Court, which was disposed of by the Apex Court vide order dated 22.08.2023 without interfering the order of the High Court dated 15.07.2022 making request to the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of nine months. The order dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure No.8) reads as under:-

¶16

"Having heard the petitioner-in-person at length and having perused the order passed by the High court, which is impugned herein, though, the petitioner seeks to contend that the charge alleged against the petitioner is baseless, taking note of the manner in which the High Court has approached the issue and rendered its judgment, we see no reason to interfere at this stage since, all contentions on merits are left open for the petitioner to be urged in the trial.

¶17

However, taking note that the petitioner is a retired employee of Railways, we request the trial Court to take up the matter and dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible but in any event, within a period of nine months from this day.

¶18

Petition is accordingly disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any."

¶19

Thereafter, the applicant filed a review petition bearing R.P. (Crl.) No.468/2023 in SLP (Crl) No.9268 of 2022, Radhey Shyam Vs. Union of India & Ors., and that review petition has been rejected by the Apex Court vide order dated 19.03.2024

¶20

(Annexure No.9), which reads as under:-

¶21

"Application for listing Review Petition in Open Court is rejected.

¶22

Application for permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures is rejected.

¶23

The review petition is dismissed accordingly in terms of the signed order.

¶24

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of."

¶25

Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI, has also submitted that against the charge sheet and summoning order, the applicant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing U/S 482/378/407 No.878 of 2018 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.02.2018 with the direction to the applicant to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail.

¶26

It has been informed at the Bar that charges have been framed against the applicant vide order dated 03.08.2024 and the applicant filed this petition immediately thereafter.

¶27

Having considered the order dated 15.07.2022 (supra) having been passed by this Court in the criminal revision and the orders being passed by the Apex Court, I do not find it proper to quash the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the charges have been framed against the present applicant.

¶28

Once the High Court observed in para-20 of its order that 'it cannot be said that no prima facie case exists against the revisionist. ... Detailed evaluation of the evidence/material is not required at this stage. This Court is in agreement with the view of the learned trial Court that there is sufficient evidence/material available against the accuse-revisionist, which raises strong suspicion regarding his involvement in commission of the offence'. The aforesaid order has not been interfered by the Apex Court, rather learned Trial Court has been asked to conclude the trial expeditiously within a maximum period of nine months, any order being passed in the present petition/ application would be interference of the order/ direction being passed by the Apex Court.

¶29