Dismissed

Antram Alias Anant Ram v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2020CRLP/9998/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR against a fair price shop dealer accused of failing to distribute food grains was dismissed. The court held that prima facie a cognizable offence emerged, precluding interference at this stage.

What did the court decide?

FIR registration and potential arrest were upheld; bail application reserved if petitioner surrenders within 30 days.

Antram Alias Anant Ram Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9998 of 2020 Petitioner :- Antram Alias Anant Ram Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hans Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

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

¶5

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR dated 6.4.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0031 of 2020, under Sections 420 IPC and Section 3/7 of E.C. Act, P.S. Majhganwa, District Hamirpur with a further prayer, not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the first information report.

¶6

Allegation in the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 4 (supply Inspector) is that the petitioner who is a fair price shop dealer has failed to distribute food grains to the card holders in the month of March and April,2020. It is further alleged that despite obtaining the transaction with the help of biometric of a particular Adhar Card, the food grains were not supplied to various ration card/unit holders, which finds support from the statements of the various card holders as well as Village Pradhan.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the F.I.R. has been lodged out of personal enmity and sheer malice. It is further submitted that it is not reported anywhere that there is any short supply or surplus supply in his ration shop and without checking the details of the stock register and distribution register, present false FIR has been lodged. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations. The aforesaid contention cannot be considered at this stage because it is well settled that ordinarily defence of the accused is not to be considered while considering the prayer to quash the FIR in writ jurisdiction.

¶9

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs.

¶10

State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 , after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.

¶11

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner.

¶12

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

However, it is provided that if the petitioner appears or surrenders before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail in the aforesaid case, his prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 1.10.2020 RavindraKSingh

Antram Alias Anant Ram v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antram Alias Anant Ram v. State of U P and 4 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

Vedpal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mangal Singh @ Abhishek and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dilshad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Mahant Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ruchi Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others