Allowed

Narbada Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2020CRLP/9524/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and preventing the petitioner's arrest. It refused the quashing but directed that the investigation continue without arresting the petitioner until the police report is submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashing refused; arrest of petitioner stayed pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to cooperation.

Narbada Prasad Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9524 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Narbada Prasad Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Maheshwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 02.07.2020 in case Crime No. 0069 of 2020, under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, police station Raipura, District Chitrakoot.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a whole seller of the fertilizer, a sample was obtained on 23.11.2019 from a retailer namely Keshari Traders/ Umesh Chandra Kesarwani Khand and Beez Bhandar, Bhauri, Chitrakoot and analysis report was obtained in respect thereof which indicated that the said sample was spurious, retailer was put to notice and after his reply no action was taken, wheras petitioner Narbada Prasad Gupta is a wholesale dealer, no sample was obtained from hs possession, coupled with the fact that the FIR has been lodged after 6 months which is malafidely motivated only with a view to harass the petitioner, no offences are made out, FIR be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, the learned A.G.A has opposed the submission.

¶9

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned FIR as well as the other material brought on record, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.

¶10

However, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to his cooperation during investigation.

¶11

The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card).

¶12

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.10.2020

¶14

S.K.S.

Narbada Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narbada Prasad Gupta 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saddam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Yadav (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Binte Zehra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neha Madaan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jai Prakash Maddheshiya and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Sudheer Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others