Ajay Kumar @ Bablu v. Union Of India Through Its Home Secretary, New Delhi And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46490 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2008 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna ====================================================== Ajay Kumar @ Bablu Son of Shri Gouri Shankar Prasad resident of Mohalla Gourakshni, satoshi path, Police station town, District Rohtas ast Present .3 MF 8/s Bahadurpur Housing Colony Patna and Proprietor of erstwhile M/s Ayush Enterprises 8-111, and P.s Buddha Colony Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Union Of India Through Its Home Secretary, New Delhi 2.

Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna.

3.

State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.J. Upadhyay App ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 15-03-2023 No one appears on call.

This is an application for quashing of the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Learned Special Judge CBI, South Bihar. Patna whereby and whereunder cognizance was taken under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act 1988 in Special Case No. 08/2008 corresponding to RC Case No.8/2008.

C.B.I. lodged a case in 2008 after inspection of security documents and verification of property of loan assets and found great irregularity in the Allahabad Bank, Patliputra

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46490 of 2015(2) dt.15-03-2023 2/2 Colony Branch and the allegation against amongst other the petitioner was of obtaining cash credit of Rs. 10 lakhs on forged document. Accordingly, the C.B.I. registered case against the accused persons.

The matter travelled upto the Court of the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna and vide order dated 12.11.2009 cognizance was taken under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The same was challenged after six years in 2015.

No interference is required in the matter.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ajay Singh/- U T