Dismissed

Shivkumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024A482/18225/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application seeking to quash proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate mala fide or jurisdictional illegality as required by Bhajan Lal. The court stated that factual disputes and evidence appreciation must be left for trial.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action for 4 weeks pending trial court's decision on recall of warrants.

Shivkumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:193362

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18225 of 2024 Applicant :- Shivkumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 10.6.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 12.11.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.47040 of 2021 titled State v. Ram Autar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.457 of 2018, under section 3/7/8 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to an ulterior motive; the applicant was not incharge of the godown before the date of inspection and he was posted at Bilsanda at the time of inspection. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on an order dated 26.12.2018 issued by the Chief Secretary, Mandi Samiti; containing the fact that the applicant had auctioned the seized goods and an amount of Rs.50,500/- was deposited to the district treasury. The applicant's role has been surfaced only when the matter was further investigated.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. states that the applicant was in charge of the godowns where the inspection was carried out by a

¶9

team constituted by the District Magistrate who directed not to allow unauthorize use of the godowns by the individuals. He further submits that the godowns were only meant for the members of the Samiti. Still, contrary to the directions of the District Magistrate, the applicant allowed the outsider to use the godowns for personal use and subsequently on inspection goods were seized and auctioned.

¶10

On perusal of the record, it's observed that the learned counsel for the applicant has not filed the complete case diary along with the details that are required to substantiate his argument to make out a case of quashing as mandated in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 case, neither he is able to assist the Court as to how the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, and on perusal of the material available on record, it prima-facie transpires that the District Magistrate appointed the S.D.M. vide order dated 22.11.2018 and constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Secretary Mandi Samiti, Bisalpur comprising two other Inspectors, and directed the applicants and other co-accused to conduct the auction of the goods seized from the godowns unauthorizedly kept by the nonmembers, which itself would not make out a case that the applicant was not involved in the offence in which the charge sheet has been filed by the police. At best, the applicant's argument can be addressed at the time of charge, and their admissibility can be tested during the trial. This is not the stage under section 482 Cr.P.C. where the weight of material collected by police would be tested.

¶12

Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence

¶13

or examining the reliability and credibility of the evidence does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

The instant application is devoid of merits, and it is accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

After dictation, learned counsel for the applicant prayed to stay the non-bailable warrants issued by the trial court during pendency of the instant application. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and moves appropriate application before the trial court for recalling of the impugned non bailable warrant, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of four weeks or till the applicant moves an application before the trial court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.12.2024 Anil K. Sharma

¶17

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivkumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivkumar Mishra v. State of U.P. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sahbaz vs State of U.P.

Vishnu vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Anita Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Jaiswal @ Anil Kumar Kulwar vs State of Up and Another

X (Minor) vs State of U.P. and 3 Others