High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vimi Agrawal v. C.B.I. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 15801 of 2005  RD-AH 950 (13 January 2006)
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G. S. Hajela, learned counsel for the opposite party, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.12.2004 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. Anti Corruption Ghaziabad whereby she directed to summon the accused applicant under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no legal evidence against the applicant and that she has been falsely implicated in this case and that the learned trial Court has erred in summoning the accused applicant.
According to prosecution case National Saving Certificate and Kisan Vikas Patra were sent from Nasik Press but were reported to have been stolen/loss in their transit in the year 1996097. Information was sent to all the concerned Post Offices not to acknowledge those certificates. Subhash Chandra Tyagi, Dharampal and others who are co accused in this matter dishonestly and fraudulently encashed those certificates to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs and the accused applicant also was party in their act as she is alleged to have put her signature while receiving the amount.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the report of Central Forensic Institution shows that these documents were not signed by the applicant and that there is no evidence against her but the learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that one of the accused Ranveer Singh had turned approver and had stated in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. about the role of Smt. Vimi Agarwal, accused applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the applicant has wrongly referred about the report of the Forensic Expert as the Forensic Expert did not report that the papers did not contain signature of the applicant but it has reported that for want of sufficient material then could not be compared and the expert expressed inability to give any opinion about those signatures.
Learned Trial Court has mentioned in the impugned order on the basis of evidence collected that there is prima facie case against the applicant.
Considering the arguments of both the side, I am of the opinion that at this stage there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the applicant in the matter and it is not a case fit for quashing the summoning order or the criminal proceedings therefore the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.