Smt.Nasreen Jahan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

Smt.Nasreen Jahan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 18.3.2020 in Case No.8442 of 2020 and the cognizance order dated 25.6.2020 arising out of Case Crime No.275 of 2019 should be quashed under Section 482, the applicant contending that no prima facie evidence was found against her during investigation and the order taking cognizance is illegal. +1 more

Court's answer

The allegations against the applicant pertain to the tenure of her working as licensee of the fair price shop; certain complaints were made against her and upon inquiry her licence was cancelled.

Ratio / Principle

As far as the criminal liability of the alleged offences of Section 420 etc. committed by the applicant is concerned, she has to participate in the trial.

Key takeaways

The investigating officer, after collecting evidence, placed the charge sheet before the competent court; it cannot be said that in the present case no prima facie evidence was available to show the complicity of the accused/applicant at the initial stage.ratio¶13
The Court is not convinced to entertain the application under Section 482 seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings or setting aside of the cognizance order.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 482 dismissed. Quashing refused of charge sheet dated 18.3.2020 in Case No.8442 of 2020 (State vs Nasreen Jahan), arising out of Case Crime No.275 of 2019, P.S.-Munda Pandey, District Moradabad, and of cognizance order dated 25.6.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 I.P.C and Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act. Applicant, a fair price shop dealer whose licence was suspended on 25.4.2017 and whose agreement was cancelled on 29.6.2017 after inquiry into complaints, was alleged to have conspired with members of the Administrative Committee in wrong distribution of essential commodities (Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act). Held: the allegations pertain to her tenure as licensee; as to criminal liability she has to participate in the trial; the investigating officer collected evidence and placed the charge sheet before the competent court, and it cannot be said that no prima facie evidence of her complicity was available at the initial stage.

Court No. - 34

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13273 of 2020

Applicant :- Smt.Nasreen Jahan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.M. Iqbal Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

By means of the present application filed under Section 482, the applicant herein seeks quashing of the charge sheet dated 18.3.2020 in Case No.8442 of 2020 (State vs Nasreen Jahan) arising out of Case Crime No.275 of 2019 as well as cognizance order dated 25.6.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 I.P.C and Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act P.S-Munda Pandey District-Moradabad.

The applicant herein is a fair price shop dealer whose licence was suspended on 25.4.2017 on some complaints. The order of cancellation of the agreement had been passed on 29.6.2017. It appears that first information report was lodged on 31.5.2019 on the letter of the Upper Ayukt Khadya Evam Rasad Vibhag, U.P Lucknow.

The allegations against the applicant herein is of conspiracy with other members of the Administrative Committee in wrong distribution of essential commodities and various irregularities in the distribution were found during the course of inquiry which has resulted in cancellation of the shop. The allegations against the applicant is of commission of offence under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the first information report was lodged after a period of two years from the date of cancellation that too against a lady when the allegation of her involvement in the incident of making forged papers and forgery in distribution of essential commodities lacks in evidence.

Submission is that even no prima facie evidence could be found against the applicant during the course of investigation and as such the order of taking cognizance is illegal.

Having perused the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicant are of the tenure of her working as a licencee of the fair price shop. Certain complaints were made against her and upon inquiry, licence had been cancelled.

As far as the criminal liability of the alleged offences of Section 420 etc committed by applicant she has to participate in the trial.

The investigating officer after collecting evidence placed the charge sheet before competent court. It cannot be said that in the present case no prima facie evidence was available to show the complicity of the accused/applicant at the initial stage.

In view of the above, the Court is not convinced to entertain the application under Section 482 seeking for quashing of the criminal proceedings or setting aside of the cognizance order.

The present application under section 482 is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 7.9.2020 Harshita