Dismissed

Vinay Kumar Shukla v. State of Up and 03 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2019A482/3900/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charges for essential commodities offenses, the High Court dismissed the prayer, finding no infirmity in the lower court orders. However, the Court granted a temporary stay on coercive action if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within two months, citing specific precedent.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash dismissed; no coercive action for two months if applicant surrenders and applies for bail.

Vinay Kumar Shukla Vs State of Up and 03 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3900 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 03 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case has been assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 31.1.2019.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 27.10.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 1.1.2019 in Case Crime No. 119 of 2018 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar Shukla) under Section 3,7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Aurai, District Bhadohi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi and to stay the entire proceeding of the case.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant alleging that applicant is a fair price shop dealer. At the time of inspection by food supply Inspector, it was found that applicant was doing black marketing of wheat and rice. Statement of 40 card-holders were recorded and they stated that materials were black-marketed by the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and licence of fair price shop was cancelled by District Supply Inspector on 13.9.2018 and against that order appeal was preferred by the applicant Vinay Kumar Shukla and appeal was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2018 by the Commissioner and cancellation order dated 13.9.2018 passed by the District Supply Officer was set aside/quashed. Hence charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken against the applicant, is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without evidence. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 330 and Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Repatilata Koley and others (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 351.

¶10

From the perusal of order of appellate court vide order dated 21.12.2018, it transpires that appeal was allowed stating that only on the basis of F.I.R. licence of the applicant of fair price shop cannot be cancelled.

¶11

It is very settled law that criminal proceedings or independent status. Both proceedings run separately.

¶12

From the perusal of record, it also transpire that no findings has been given by the appellate court about the incident or about the F.I.R. and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken and summon was issued.

¶13

Learned AGA opposed and submitted that the impugned order is passed after considering whole evidence on record and is just and legal.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶15

However, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶16

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned.

¶17

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of finally.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.2.2019 A. Singh

Vinay Kumar Shukla v. State of Up and 03 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Shukla v. State of Up and 03 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chandra Vs State of Up and Another

Ashraf and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Shravan Kumar Pandey and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Lakhan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another