Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 1

GAHC010068122023

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH )

CRL.PET 316 OF 2023

Mr. Alok Kumar

S/O- Sh. Yogeshwar Prasad,

R/O- C4E, Shubham Buildwell,

R.G. Baruah Road, Near Neepco

Bhawan, Guwahati-781006,

Dist. Kamrup(M), Assam

and presently working as G.M.

Environment at NHAI Headquarter,

Dwarka, New Delhi-75.

…..Petitioner

-Versus-

Central Bureau of Investigation

O/o- Head of the Branch,

Anti-Corruption Branch (Opposite Balaji

Temple) Betkuchi, NH-37, Garchuk-781035.

……Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Mann, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. M. Haloi, Special Public Prosecutor,

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Date of Judgment : 07.08.2024

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 1

GAHC010068122023

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH )

CRL.PET 316 OF 2023

Mr. Alok Kumar

S/O- Sh. Yogeshwar Prasad,

R/O- C4E, Shubham Buildwell,

R.G. Baruah Road, Near Neepco

Bhawan, Guwahati-781006,

Dist. Kamrup(M), Assam

and presently working as G.M.

Environment at NHAI Headquarter,

Dwarka, New Delhi-75.

…..Petitioner

-Versus-

Central Bureau of Investigation

O/o- Head of the Branch,

Anti-Corruption Branch (Opposite Balaji

Temple) Betkuchi, NH-37, Garchuk-781035.

……Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Mann, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. M. Haloi, Special Public Prosecutor,

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Date of Judgment : 07.08.2024

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 2

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

ORDER

1. Heard Mr. S. Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. M. Haloi, Special Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau

of Investigation (CBI).

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, namely,

Mr. Alok Kumar, praying for quashing of the charge sheet

which has been filed in connection with FIR No.

RC2162022A0007 and all consequential proceedings

therefrom, presently pending before the Court of learned

Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No. 2,

Chandmari at Guwahati.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of instant Criminal

Petition, in brief, are as follows:

i. That, on 12.06.2022, an FIR, bearing No.

RC2162022A0007 was registered on the basis of a

reliable source information under Section 120B of the

Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and

12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at the

Central Bureau of Investigation, AC-1, New Delhi,

against six numbers of named accused persons,

namely,(1) Shri Dipak Das, (2) Shri Manoj Kumar, (3)

Shri Sushil Agarwal, (4) Shri Pankaj Singh, (5) Shri

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 3

Dilip Rajput, (6) M/s G.R. Infra Projects Limited, and

(7) Some unknown public servants and private

persons.

ii. It has been alleged in the FIR that some of the officials

of National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) posted

in the North-eastern states are indulging in corrupt

and illegal activities in the matter of awarding contract,

processing and clearance of bill in lieu of huge bribe in

connivance with private contractors.

iii. After receipt of the aforesaid FIR, a team of CBI

officials led by Mr. A.K. Maurya, Inspector CBI, AC-1,

New Delhi, was constituted. The said team, along with

the independent witnesses and the source, reached

Khanapara near Health City Hospital, Guwahati at

about 7.20 pm.

iv. After a few minutes, in line with the tip received from

the source to the effect that Shri Manoj Kumar will

come to collect the bribe amount in his car bearing

Registration No. JH10AM733, a vehicle came there and

after some time a white colour Bolero car bearing

Registration No. MN07E0113 also stopped there and

one person came down from the said Bolero car, who

was identified as Shri Pankaj Charan of M/s GR Infra

Project Limited by the source. The said person came

near Shri Manoj Kumar and handed over a yellow

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 4

envelope to him. At that time the CBI officials

intercepted and apprehended them.

v. During interrogation, the accused Manoj Kumar

confessed of obtaining Rs. 4 lakhs from the accused

Pankaj Charan. He also disclosed that out of the Rs. 4

lakhs received he will get only Rs. 50,000/- and

remaining amount i.e. Rs. 3,50,000/- was obtained for

one Shri Deepak Das.

vi. During investigation, it was revealed that on

10.09.2015 a tender was awarded to M/s GR Infra

Project Limited by National Highway Authorities of

India (NHAI) for the project “rehabilitation and

upgradation of existing roads to two lanes with paved

shoulders configuration in Jowai-Meghalaya-Assam

Border sections from NH-44 from km 69.200 to km

173.200 in the state of Meghalaya”, on Engineering

Procurement and Construction (EPC) mode under

NHDP Phase-3 for the contract price of

Rs.468,27,00,000/- (Rs. 468.27 crores).

vii. As per stipulated terms and conditions of the aforesaid

work, M/s GR Infra Project Limited submitted two bank

guarantees worth Rs. 11,46,81,000/- and Rs.

2,58,00,000/- with NHAI as performance security.

viii. The petitioner Shri Alok Kumar, who was posted and

was working as Regional Officer, National Highway

Authority of India, Regional Office Guwahati was

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 5

arrested in connection with this case on 14.06.2022 on

the allegations that he abused his official position as

public servant and entered into criminal conspiracy

with other accused persons for ensuring favourable

reports from the Authority’s Engineer of EGIS India

Consulting Engineers Private Limited and timely

release of bank guarantees by suppressing the

questionable report of the consultant.

ix. It was also alleged that the above-named petitioner

assured the accused persons namely, Sushil Kumar

Agarwal and Pankaj Singh for timely and smoothly

release of bank guarantees of M/s GR Infra Project

Limited and obtained undue advantage by securing a

job for his distant relative in the Company namely,

M/s GR Infra Project Limited.

x. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet No.3

dated 10.8.2022 was laid against 11 numbers of

accused persons. The petitioner Sri Alok Kumar has

been shown as accused number seven (A-7) in the

chargesheet. He has been charge-sheeted under

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with

Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner Alok Kumar, who was working as GM (T/RO),

NHAI, Guwahati was arrested by the CBI on 14.06.2022.

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 6

However, no allegation was made against him in the FIR

which resulted in the trap proceeding/recovery memo dated

12.06.2022, wherein one Mr. Manoj Kumar and Dipak Das of

NHAI were arrested by the CBI for allegedly accepting bribe

from one Pankaj Charan of M/s GR Infra Project Ltd.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there

is no materials against the petitioner regarding demand of

any money or his role in transaction of any money in

connection with the aforesaid trap proceeding.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with

regard to the awarding of contract to M/s GR Infra Project

Ltd., a contract was executed on 29.09.2015 between

National Highway Authority of India as well as the said

contractor. As per Clause 7.4 of the said contract under

heading “Release of Performance Security” of the aforesaid

contract, the authority is obliged to return the performance

security to the contractor within 60 days of the expiry of

maintenance period or the defect liability period.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

maintenance period and the defect liability period for the

project had expired on 31.03.2022 and accordingly, in terms

of the Clause 7.4 of the agreement, the authority was

obliged to return the performance security to the contractor

within 60 days from 01.04.2022 and the release of

performance bank guarantee by the petitioner was in

consonance with the terms of contract between the NHAI

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 7

and the contractor and it was in discharge of official duties

assigned to the petitioner.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner being the Regional Officer, of NHAI was duty

bound to ensure requisite compliance on the part of the

NHAI in terms of contract executed between the NHAI and

the contractor. It is also submitted that the non-compliance

of the commercial agreement would have resulted in huge

number of avoidable and expensive litigation.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that

the allegation in the charge sheet against the petitioner that

he assured the contractor about timely release of

performance guarantee on the condition that some distant

relative of him would get job with the said company is

baseless as there is nothing on record which shows that the

relative of the petitioner got job in the contractor's company

as a quid pro quo of the timely release of the performance

guarantee by the petitioner.

10. It is submitted that the alleged person is neither blood

relative nor has any direct family relationship and the

petitioner has no role to play regarding his employment in

the contractor's company.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that, in

the instant case, the Central Bureau of Investigation, had

clearly violated the provisions of Section 17 A of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in respect of the present

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 8

petitioner as under Section 17A of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, no police officer shall conduct any

inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have

been committed by the public servant under the said Act,

where the alleged offence is relatable to any

recommendations made or decision taken by the public

servant in discharge of the official functions or duties

without the previous approval of the authorities mentioned

in Clause (a), (b) or (c) of the said provision.

12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in

the instant case, as the release of bank guarantee in

question by the petitioner was in performance of his official

duties, prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, ought to have been taken for initiating

any inquiry/investigation against the present petitioner and

by not doing so, the entire proceeding qua the present

petitioner would be vitiated.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there

is no material on record, which shows that the petitioner

ever demanded any money for releasing the performance

guarantee to the contractor or that he asked anyone to give

employment to his distant relative in lieu of the release of

the performance guarantee.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if it is

assumed that there was a delay in release of the second

instalment of performance guarantee to the contractor, mere

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 9

instance of malfeasance or wrong administration or wrong

discharge of functions or dereliction of duty will not cause a

prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, unless

there is some element of corruption involved in doing so.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as

prior approval of the authorities mentioned in Section 17A of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was necessary for

initiating investigation against the above named petitioner

and for arresting him in this case, the initiation of

investigation against him and the filing of charge sheet

against him without there being any prior approval from the

competent authority under Section 17A, the charge sheet

laid against the present petitioner is illegal and amounts to

gross abuse of law and therefore, same is liable to be

quashed.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the

evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence by the above named petitioner

and make out a case against him in this case and therefore,

this is a fit case where the inherent powers of the Court

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

should be exercised and the charge sheet and the

proceeding pending against the above named petitioner

without there being any materials on record against him,

should be quashed.

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 10

17. In support of the submissions made by learned counsel for

the petitioner has cited following rulings:

i. Ramesh Chennithala Vs. State of Kerala reported in

2018 SCC Online KER 14261;

ii. Taba Tedir Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

reported in 2019 SCC online GAU 3451;

iii. Bhayabhai Gigabhai Sutreja Vs. State of Gujarat

reported in 2020 SCC online GUJ 2266;

iv. Kailash Chandra Agarwal and Another Vs. state of

Rajasthan reported in 2020 SCC online RAJ 2869;

v. Himanshu Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

reported in 2022 SCC online RAJ 1303;

vi. State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others

reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

18. On the other hand, Mr. M. Haloi, learned Special Public

Prosecutor, CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer of the

petitioner for quashing the proceeding of the Special CBI

Case No. 05/2022 qua the above-named petitioner which

was initiated on the basis of FIR No. RC2162022A0007.

19. Mr. M. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI has

produced the case diary of concerned case before this Court

and has submitted that this case is related to demand and

acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused public

servants from private accused persons of M/s GR Infra

Project Ltd. for payment of release of performance bank

guarantee and also passing their bill expeditiously. He has

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 11

also submitted that the demand and acceptance of illegal

gratification by the accused public servants is not connected

with the discharge of official duty, therefore, the provisions

of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is

not applicable in the instant case.

20. It is submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that the

above named petitioner is a conspirator working in the

nexus with other public servants and private persons. Hence,

he does not come within the purview of Section 17A of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

21. He has also submitted that though, the petitioner has not

been named in the FIR, however, an FIR may not be an

encyclopedia of all the events in a criminal case and not

naming the petitioner in it would not absolve him from the

criminal liability if otherwise materials are available against

him. He has also submitted that sufficient materials were

collected during investigation against the above-named

petitioner, which implicates him in the case which was

registered on the basis of the FIR.

22. He has also submitted that as the charge sheet has been

laid after completion of the investigation, question of

quashing the FIR on the ground that FIR does not discloses

involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence does not

arise as after filing of the FIR, in the investigation which was

initiated in person, sufficient material were collected against

the above named petitioner. He has submitted that

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 12

accepting bribe or making an attempt to obtain bribe cannot

be considered as an part of the official duties of the

petitioner.

23. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has also submitted that

the statement of one Rajesh Kumar Sharma, who is the

proprietor of M/s MR Construction, shows that the petitioner

asked him to pay at least Rs. 50,000/- as reward for

arrangement of DM-50 plant, DG-125 KVA along with

container on reasonable rates from M/s GR Infra Project Ltd.

24. It is also submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that

the telephonic conversation recording of the petitioner with

Ashok Kumar Singh, who is the Authority Engineer of M/s

EGIS India Consulting Engineers Private Limited shows that

the petitioner asked him not to write “but not

recommended” type of words to NHAI which may create

problem in future.

25. It is submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that the

above-named petitioner extended undue favour towards M/s

GR Infra Project Ltd. by releasing the bank guarantee to

them.

26. It is also submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that

the intercepted telephonic conversation between the

petitioner and the officials of M/s GR Infra Project Ltd.

shows that the release of bank guarantee and other bills

were in lieu of the petitioner securing a job for his cousin

Kumar Ankit in M/s GR Infra Project Ltd.

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 13

27. Learned special public prosecutor has submitted that taking

of illegal gratification for releasing of bank guarantee cannot

be considered as an act which is directly connected with

making any decision or recommendation by the petitioner in

discharge of his official duty, so as to bring him within the

purview of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. Hence, he has prayed that the Criminal Petition filed

by the petitioner may be dismissed.

28. Learned special public prosecutor has also submitted that

the case of the petitioner does not fall within any of the

seven conditions enumerated by the Apex Court in the case

of the “State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan lal (Supra)”

so as to invoke the powers of Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure 1973 in this case.

29. In support of the submissions made by him, learned special

public prosecutor, CBI has cited following rulings:

i. Nizam Begum and Another Vs. State and another,

[Judgment dated 21.02.2011, passed in WP (CRL)

No.1137/2007 by the Delhi High Court.];

ii. Kailas Sopan Jade Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported

in AIR Online, 2023, BOM 140;

iii. Baltej Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, [Judgment dated

23.01.2017 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.

3916/2006 by the Rajasthan High Court.];

iv. Swatantar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in

(1997) 4 SCC 14;

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 14

v. Devinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab through

CBI, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 87;

vi. State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others,

reported in (1982) SUPP, (1) SCC 335;

vii. Kaptan and Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

others, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 35;

viii. Shankara Bhat Vs. State of Kerala, (Judgment dated

27.08.2021) passed in CRL. MC No. 7542/2018 by the

Kerala High Court.

30. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned

counsel for both the sides and have gone through the

materials available on record, including the case diary of

RC2162022A007. I have also gone through the rulings cited

by learned counsel for both the sides.

31. On perusal of the FIR dated 12.06.2022, on the basis of

which RC2162022A0007 was registered, it appears that

though, six numbers of accused persons were named in the

FIR, however, the petitioner Alok Kumar has not been

named in the FIR, and though, some general allegations

were levelled against the officials of National Highway

Authority of India (NHAI) posted in North-Eastern states, of

having been indulging in corrupt and illegal activities, no

specific allegation was made in the said FIR against the

petitioner Alok Kumar.

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 15

32. It also appears from record that the petitioner Alok Kumar

was arrested in connection with the case on 14.06.2022, and

later on, he was allowed to go on bail.

33. It also appears that after completion of the investigation,

charge sheet was laid amongst other, against the petitioner

Alok Kumar, with an allegation that investigation disclosed

that the above-named petitioner abused his official position

as public servant and entered into criminal conspiracy for

ensuring favourable reports from Authority Engineer of EGIS

India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. for timely release of

bank guarantee by suppressing the questionable report of

the consultant.

34. It was also alleged that the petitioner assured the other

accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar Agarwala and Pankaj

Singh, for timely and smoothly release of bank guarantee of

M/s GR Infra Project Limited and obtain undue advantage by

securing a job for his distant relative in the M/s GR Infra

Project Limited.

35. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Alok Kumar, who is the

Regional Officer, NHAI, RO Guwahati, is a public servant.

However, no prior approval as mandated under Section 17A

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was obtained,

prior to initiating investigating against the present petitioner,

in this case.

36. Further, as per Clause 7.4 of the agreement between the

NHAI and M/s GR Infra Project Limited, the authority shall

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 16

have to return the performance security to the contractor

within 60 days of the later of expiry of the maintenance

period or the defect liability period under the agreement.

Thus, the petitioner, being the Regional Officer of the NHAI,

was under an obligation to release the bank guarantee as

per the recommendation of the Authority Engineer to the

contractor.

37. Though, the allegation of securing undue advantage by the

petitioner has been made in the charge sheet, however,

from the materials available in the case diary, there is

nothing to suggest that the petitioner demanded any undue

favour in lieu of release of bank guarantee.

38. It also appears that, though, the recorded telephonic

conversation between the petitioner and the officials of M/s

GR Infra Project Limited does show that they had

conversation in respect of the recommendation made by the

Authority Engineer. However, there is nothing, which

suggests that the petitioner demanded anything in lieu of

timely release of bank guarantee to M/s GR Infra Project

Limited. Apart from mere allegation, the available materials

on record does not suggest that the petitioner secured any

undue advantage in lieu of doing his official duty of releasing

bank guarantee to the M/s GR Infra Project Limited.

39. It appears that the release of performance bank guarantee

was by the NHAI was in consonance with the terms of

contract between NHAI and the contractor and the petitioner

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 17

only discharged his official duty assigned to him as Regional

Officer of the NHAI.

40. As regards the allegation against the petitioner that he

secured a job for Kumar Ankit, who is alleged to be his

cousin brother, in M/s GR Infra Project Limited on

instructions of Alok Kumar. However, on perusal of the

materials available on record, it appears that there is no

evidence on record, apart from the recorded telephonic

conversation between the petitioner and the officials of M/s

GR Infra Project Limited, wherein the petitioner only made

an inquiry regarding appointment of the said person.

However, there is nothing in the conversation to suggest

that anything was assured in lieu of such an appointment or

that any demand was made to the officials of M/s GR Infra

Project Limited to appoint Mr. Kumar Ankit.

41. It also appears that during the telephonic conversation

between the petitioner and Pankaj Charan, there was only

an inquiry regarding the work done in respect of the change

of scope (COS) of the allotted work to the tune of Rs. 4

lakhs, which does not suggest that anything was paid to the

petitioner or any undue favour was demanded by him.

42. Further, from the statement of Rajesh Kumar Sharma, the

proprietor of M/s MR Construction, which the prosecution

side is relying, it appears that he has categorically stated

that he had not paid a single penny to Alok Kumar and he

had only alleged that the petitioner was demanding a reward

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 18

of Rs. 50,000/- from him. However, he never committed to

give any bribe to the petitioner for purchase of DM-50 Plant,

DG-125 KVA container along with other items from M/s GR

Infrastructure Project Ltd.

43. Thus, in the instant case, though, allegations are made

against him of having obtained undue favour of release of

bank guarantee to the M/s GR Infra Project Limited, the

materials collected during investigation do not disclose

commission of any offence by the petitioner

44. Though, taking of bribe or taking undue favour, by a public

servant, cannot be regarded as anything connected with the

work in discharge of official duties, however, in the instant

case there is no evidence which suggests that the petitioner

took any bribe or any undue favour in lieu of releasing of

bank guarantee, which the NHAI was bound to release

under the terms of contract between it and the contractor’s

company.

45. Further, the provision of Section 17A of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, prohibits conducting of inquiry or

investigation into any offence under the act unless to have

been committed by a public servant where the act is

relatable to any recommendation made on decision taken by

such public servant in discharge of his official function.

46. In the instant case, manifestly, the release of bank

guarantee to the contractor’s company by the petitioner was

done in discharge of his official duty. Therefore, before

Crl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 19

initiating any inquiry or investigation against him under the

provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, prior

approval of the authorities mentioned in Clause (a), (b) or

(c) of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

was a sine qua non and the investigation against the present

petitioner could not have been taken up without such

approval from the concerned authorities.

47. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that without

complying with the provisions of Section 17A of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the initiation of

investigation and laying of charge sheet against the

petitioner Alok Kumar was illegal and in violation of the

statutory provisions and it amounts to an abuse of the

process of law.

48. In the case of “State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan lal

and Others” (Supra) the Supreme Court of India has laid

down that where an express legal bar engrafted in any of

the provision of the code or the concerned act to the

institution and continuation of proceeding and/or where

there is a specific provision in the code or concerned act

providing efficacious redressal for grievance of the interest

of the party, the inherent powers of the Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be

exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or

otherwise to secure ends of justice. In the instant case also,

in view of the statutory bar of Section 17A of the Prevention

Order downloaded on 04-08-2025 10:06:56 PMCrl.Pet.316 of 2023 Page 20

of Corruption Act, 1988, the continuation of proceedings

against the above-named petitioner would be an abuse of

the process of court.

49. In light of discussions made herein above, this Criminal

Petition deserves to be allowed, and accordingly, the charge

sheet laid before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Assam

Additional Court No. 2, Chandmari in connection with a FIR

No. RC2162022A0007, qua the petitioner Alok Kumar, is

hereby quashed and set aside.

50. This Criminal Petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant