Dismissed

Gulista v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2023A482/30399/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against a fair price shop dealer for alleged irregularities and black marketing, the Court distinguished a previous interim order and held that the facts clearly disclose the offence. The summoning order was found legal and the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; the summoning order and entire proceedings could not be quashed.

Gulista Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175072 Order Reserved On 21.08.2023. Order Delivered On 04.09.2023.

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30399 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Gulista Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Yash Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet no. 163 of 2022, dated 26.11.2022 and summoning/ cognizance order dated 31.03.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 793/9 of 2023 (State Vs. Gulista), arising out of Case Crime No. 0113 of 2022, under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.1, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶8

Brief facts giving rise to this application are that the applicant is a Fair Price Shop Dealer and an FIR has been lodged against him registered vide Case Crime No. 113 of 2022, under Sections 3/7 of E.C. Act, stating therein that Shahnawaz and others, who are the residents of the village Nizampur, had filed a complaint that fair price shop of the applicant is in fact being run by his father-in-law Muntiyaz and number of irregularities are being committed by him.

¶9

On the basis of the said complaint, inspection team was constituted consisting of officers of Weight and Measures Department as well as Supply Department. An inspection was made at the fair price shop of the applicant and inspection report was prepared at the time of inspection stating therein that fair price shop was illegally being managed by Muntiyaz, father-in-law of the applicant and number of ration card holders were present at the time of inspection, who raised their grievance that they are getting lesser quantity of food grains and complaint of under weighment of food grains was also made.

¶10

It is further alleged in the FIR that number of irregularities were detected at the time of inspection, which has been succinctly mentioned in the FIR. During the said inspection, 11.74 Kgs of wheat, 9.75 Kgs of rice and 32 packets of edible oil etc, were found lesser than the requisite stock, whereas 53 Kgs of sugar was found in excess and as such, there has been irregularity found in the distribution of the food grains for the purposes of black marketing and by said irregularity committed by the applicant, she has violated the terms of agreement and the provisions of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, as amended, and thus, she has also committed the offence under Sections 3/7 of E.C. Act.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the

¶13

material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that during the course of investigation, the statement of Shahnawaz and other villagers has not been recorded and by making a defective investigation, the police has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant, on the basis of which, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial vide order dated 31.03.2023.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to an interim order dated 13.02.2023 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/s 482 No. 43130 of 2022 (Ruma Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and has submitted that in view of the said order, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the said order has been passed relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apext Court in the case of Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2004) 7 SCC 490 and has submitted that during the course of investigation, the concerned officials has not pointed out, as to which control order has been violated by the applicant and therefore, cognizance taken by the court below under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act, is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has supported the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 and has drawn the attention of the Court to the allegations made in the FIR highlighting the irregularities and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, in which, detailed irregularities found at the fair price shop of the applicant has been stated and even, the stock found at the fair price shop of the applicant has been found either in excess or in short of actual quantity that should have been stored at her fair price shop. The allegation of malpractices and black marketing has also been alleged against the applicant. In the FIR as well as in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it has been clearly stated that by committing said irregularities, the applicant has not only violated the terms of agreement for running the Fair Price Shop but also violated the provisions of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, as amended, and thus, she has committed the offence under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act.

¶18

Learned AGA has further submitted that the police, after thoroughly investigating the matter and collecting cogent and reliable evidence and after obtaining the requisite sanction from the District Magistrate for prosecuting the applicant under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act for having violated the provisions of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, as amended, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant, on which, learned court below has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial vide order dated

¶19

31.03.2023. Thus, there is no illegality or error in law in taking the cognizance on the said charge-sheet and summoning the applicant to face trial, prima facie, offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, the entire proceedings can not be quashed.

¶20

Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegations made in the FIR and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, prima facie, offence under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act is clearly made out against the applicant. During the course of inspection, a large number of irregularities has been found at the fair price shop of the applicant, which has been clearly mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement of the first informant. Even, difference in the stock has been found at the fair price shop of the applicant and allegation of black marketing and malpracticing has also been alleged against the applicant.

¶21

It is further evident that by committing such irregularities, the applicant has not only violated the terms of agreement, on which, the fair price shop has been given to her but by adhering to such irregularities and malpractices, she has also violated the provisions of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, as amended, and thus, she has clearly committed the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act.

¶22

Further, Clause 11 of the aforesaid Control Order clearly provides that if Fair Price Shop Dealer contravenes any provision of this Order, he shall be liable to the punishment under Section 7 of the Act.

¶23

Thus, in view of the above, from the material collected during the course of investigation and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, prima facie offence under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act is clearly made out against the applicant.

¶24

The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the instant case and is distinguishable on facts as in the instant case, it has been categorically stated that applicant has committed various irregularities and malpractices while running the fair price shop, which is violative of provisions contained in U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, as amended, and is punishable under Section 7 of the Act, as per Clause 11 of the Control Order.

¶25

In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned summoning order 31.03.2023 passed by the court below is just, proper and legal and the entire proceedings based on the charge-sheet can not be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC.

¶26

The application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

Order Date :- 4.9.2023 Nadim

¶28

Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gulista v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulista v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

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

Devendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Than Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dashrath Ram Vs State of Up and Another

Sumit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another