Writ petition filed to quash FIR under Essential Commodities Act alleging false harassment. Court held that evidence cannot be considered in quashing proceedings; since FIR discloses an offence, petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; FIR not quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 571 of 2022
Petitioner :- Nandalal
Respondent :- State Of U.P Through Secretary Home And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jawahir Yadav,Subhash Chandra Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
The instant writ petition has been filed with prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 06.01.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No.6 of 2022 under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station Kalwari, District Basti.
The allegations in the first information report is that the petitioner, who is an fair price shop dealer, filed an application on health grounds. On this application the quota allotted to him was attached to a neighbouring dealer. The neighbouring dealer thereafter asked for the balance of the food grains procured by the petitioner for their distribution. This was not done. Ultimately, on an inspection being made, which was conducted in the presence of the son of the petitioner, no essential commodities was found on the spot. The stock register and other relevant documents were also not produced at that time.
The first information report also mentions the quantity of food grains and other essential commodities, which were required to have been found on the spot but were not found during inspection.
In this regard the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no balance of essential commodities in his possession as the quota lifted by him had already been distributed to the card holders. Therefore, the first information report is false and nothing but an attempt to harass the petitioner.
In our considered opinion, the plea that is being raised by the petitioner is his defence. He has also relied on various documents in support of his defence. Even evidence cannot be looked into while dealing with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which seeks quashing of the impugned first information report.
It is only the allegation in the first information report which are relevant and the Court is only required to determine as to whether they constituent offence or not. Since, an offence is clearly disclose in the first information report, the same cannot be quashed. For the same reason, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
At this stage, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the maximum sentence that can be awarded to the petitioner is under 7 years and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be entertained.
Even, this submission cannot be accepted in view of what has already been stated above and the first information report cannot be quashed on this ground.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.2.2022 Nitin Verma
Digitally signed by NITIN KUMAR VERMA Date: 2022.02.03 15:20:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an offence is disclosed by the allegations in the first information report.
Whether the writ petition can be dismissed despite the petitioner's claim that the maximum sentence is less than 7 years.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaReferred¶13
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nandalal
State Of U.P Through Secretary Home
Anjani Kumar Mishra
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
