U/s 420/465/471/427ipc..43/66 it act 52/53 copyright
jagesh nath
(Querist) 26 July 2013
This query is : Resolved
CJM has taken cognizance of charge sheet and issued summon.The accused went to H.C.LKO u/482,but his advocate instead arguing law point viz 197 argue facts.H.C.rejected.
After three months I.O has filed a charge sheet against another accused who was the Head of the first accused in the office.
H.C.Lko bench has stayed the cognizance and summon order u/s 482 writ.The govt has order
further investigation by cyber cell on representation.
During trial ie counter/rejoinder the H.c has clubed both writs.The opp party main argument is ,since first accused writ was disallowed,the second accused can not get any relief.our argument is no sanction u/s 197 is taken,and further investigation is on.We are looking also for DIV bench case law for ALLAHABAD H.C OR S.C reg even 1ST accused denied releif second can get it by H.C.and since further investigation is on on the request of 2nd accused the H.C can quash the charge sheet.
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 27 July 2013
state full facts, what are the roles of accused?
jagesh nath
(Querist) 28 July 2013
Many thanks
Ist accused is IT expert in the institute. 2nd accused was Head of the institute.Since institute were receiving many obnoxious mails ISt accused with CAO put a proposal before th 2nd accused to form a 4 member committee.which was approved by head.One Lab was suspected during investigation, since the in charge of this lab ( opp party ) was deliberately not present the lab was sealed. Same day the in charge met the head that systems are on may be damaged. Head along with com member got open the sealed in late evening and took out the suspected CPO seal the lab under the signature of all the com member.After few days ,lab was investigated and four hard disc were taken out and sealed under the signature of all comm members. Its images were snd to cfsl chandigarh. On findings that mails were generated from this lab its incharge was suspended. CAT has approved the suspension
but h,c revoked on tech ground.No fir was lodged against the in charge but IO has taken all tutored statement and filed the charge sheet against the HOD,who took administrative action only by approving the committee and minutes etc.The opp party convince the IO THE SEAL IMAGES WERE OPEN WHILE TAKING TO CHANDIGARH AND THESE OBNOXIOUS EMAIL PUT. THE ORG HARD DISC ARE STILL LAYING SEALED WITH INSTITUTE.
In anticipation
with kind regards
M V Gupta
(Expert) 28 July 2013
Relief for quashing the charge sheet filed by each accused person is decided separately based on the facts and circumstances cited by the accused in his application. The fact that the application of another accused for quashing the CS against him was dismissed will not be a bar for granting the application of another accused. I do not think any authority for this proposition is necessary.
jagesh nath
(Querist) 28 July 2013
Respected Sir
Many many thanks.We are looking for a case law on this. Some one told us their is a judgement of Allahabad High court on this.Like ,
When further investigation is ordered charge sheet can be quashed.
2004( 48 )ACC 18
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cr Misc Application no 5250 0f 2002
Rakesh Kumar Srivastava vs state of u.p
Kindly favour us giving case law on co accused charge sheet and on further investigation of S.C or H.C.
With best regards
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 29 July 2013
There are any similar judgments so find them on indiankanoon.org
dr g balakrishnan
(Expert) 15 October 2015
in the first issue is FIR filing not done, if so how could you find fault with HC sir.
dr g balakrishnan
(Expert) 15 October 2015
First always follow laid down procedures, else you might lose, whoever you are.
