Dismissed

Mohammad Eeshan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2019CRLP/7014/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging misuse of the supply distribution system involving Aadhar manipulation. The petitioner claimed lack of access to databases and absence of complaints. The court distinguished the apex court's order on facts, noting the need for accomplices in such crimes, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed and declared to lack merit.

Mohammad Eeshan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7014 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohammad Eeshan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivanand Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Shivanand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 1.9.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0609/2018, under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Section 71 of the IT Act and Section 38 of Aadhar Act, P.S Kotwali, Etawah.

¶7

The FIR lodged by Supply Inspector alleges that upon large number of complaints received relating to misuse on the distribution front of the scheduled commodities, involving the computer system at the end of District Supply Officer, a detailed scrutiny was carried out in July, 2018, which indicated that the Aadhar number of a beneficiary seeded into the system was edited, linked with Aadhar number of another person and after biometric authentication of the other person, essential commodities were disbursed to the said other person, thereafter the Aadhar number was again seeded with the account of the beneficiary. In such way, petitioner misappropriated the Aadhar cards of others and siphoned off the commodities in black-market.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither has any complaint been received from any beneficiary regarding maldistribution nor the petitioner has any access to tamper the database of the beneficiaries, which is exclusively under control of District Supply Officer, which can only be accessed by using a login ID and password, known to the officials. He places reliance on a decision in CMWP No. 1679 of 2019 and on a decision of the Apex Court in SLP (Cr) 10282 of 2018 dated 4.12.2018, with whom he claims parity.

¶9

The order of the Apex Court dated 4.12.2018 is quoted hereunder:

¶10

"The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 06.09.2018 lodged under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 IPC against the petitioner. While rejecting the challenge seeking quashing of the FIR, the High Court passed the following directions:

¶11

However, in the eventuality in filing the regular bail application by the petitioner before the competent court within three weeks from today, it is expected from the said court to decide his regular bail application in accordance with law.

¶12

Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various orders passed by different Benches of the High Court. One such order, in a case involving similar crime under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, had granted protection in following terms:

¶13

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and nature of the allegations, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶14

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, we pass the following directions:

¶15

1. The petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with Crime No.0545 registered at Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor on 06.09.2018, for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 IPC till the investigation is complete.

¶16

2. If, after the investigation, the Police finds substance in the allegation and files the requisite charge-sheet, the petitioner shall appear on the date in question when the charge-sheet is taken up for consideration by the concerned Court. The police shall appropriately issue notice to the petitioner and ensure his presence on the requisite date.

¶17

3. In such eventuality, the petitioner shall keep the application for bail ready, which will be taken up for hearing by the concerned Court immediately.

¶18

4. The concerned Court shall consider the matter purely on merits. If the offence is made out, appropriate order shall be passed.

¶19

Needless to mention that the petitioner shall extend complete cooperation with the investigating machinery during the investigation and if there be any infraction or violation, the concerned Court shall be approached for consequential directions.

¶20

The special leave petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶21

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶22

A perusal of the above order manifests that the aforesaid was confined to its own facts, as neither any facts have been discussed nor any principle of law enunciated.

¶23

The FIR in the instant case alleges as to how the mischief at the distribution front has been carried out involving manipulation of the

¶24

biometrics of the beneficiary and his Aadhar number, so as to siphon off large number of supplies in the black market, which is not possible without accomplicity at both the ends.

¶25

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶26

Order Date :- 14.3.2019 Chandra

Mohammad Eeshan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Eeshan v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Rakesh Kumar Nigam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Sirajuddin and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shadab Baig Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Irfana Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashama Bano and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others