Dismissed

Ajit Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jun 2020CRLP/5587/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash an FIR under the Essential Commodities Act alleging false implication. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the FIR was registered following judicial sanction by the District Magistrate based on investigations into alleged ration distribution irregularities, leaving no scope for interference.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the First Information Report is dismissed.

Ajit Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5587 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajit Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Ajit Singh with a prayer for issuing a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the first information report registered as case crime no. 52 of 2020 under section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, police station Mardah District Ghazipur.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent. He had lodged a complaint in form of first information report against some card holders who had obstructed fair distribution of articles. They manipulated under their political influence to get this false case lodged against him. As per first information report, ration at shop was in accordance with the allotment of distribution. There was no discrepancy in it. Only on the basis of statements recorded this case was got registered. Hence, this petition with above prayer.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed that this petition was filed by E-filing with not sending copy to learned A.G.A. or his office but from the very perusal of first information report, it is apparent that it was got registered after sanction of District Magistrate that too upon the report of District Supply Officer as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate after alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner during period of covid-19 pandemic wherein ration and essential commodities were being distributed amongst poor, vulnerable section of society under welfare scheme of State. This is a heinous offence and requires no indulgence in the matter by this court.

¶8

First information report reveals that this case was not got registered instantly rather a complaint was received by senior officers and under direction of senior officers this fair price shop of co-operative society was got raided by Supply Inspector wherein sale register and distribution register along with relevant papers were not furnished by the petitioner. Ultimately, on the basis of available brochure same were got verified but it

¶9

can not be determined because of non supply of register but statements of a number of people got recorded who had mentioned about short and under weight supply of ration that too after getting price. The mandate and direction of State were flouted by the petitioner. Entire matter was reported to District Supply Officer as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate. In turn entire matter was reported to District Magistrate for getting his sanction before lodging of first information report. District Magistrate by application of judicial mind granted sanction and then this case crime number was got registered. Hence under all above facts and circumstances, there remains nothing for any indulgence by this court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶10

However, the Investigating Officer or Presiding Judge of E.C. Act will not be influenced by any finding given by this Court, while deciding the application.

¶11

Order Date :- 17.6.2020 Gss

Ajit Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rachna Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ashutosh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Siraj Alias Mahmuwar Rahman and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahak Khan and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jagdish Kumar Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishal Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others