Dismissed

Ramphool v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024A482/26966/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet under the Essential Commodities Act. The court held that factual disputes regarding black marketing and recovered rice preclude interference at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet and summoning order was dismissed.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:133549

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26966 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ramphool Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 16.3.2024 and summoning order dated 1.5.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.6291 of 20124 titled as State v. Ramphool and others, arising out of Case Crime No.21 of 2023, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, registered at P.S. Saiyan, District Agra, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Agra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive, and no case under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out. To substantiate his argument he has relied upon the receipt allegedly issued by Aman Traders, Retailer and Wholeseller of Jaggery, Sugar, Rice, Refined, Foodgrains and Commission Agent, Near Ganeshi Market, Bayana, Rajasthana for purchase of the rice. He further submits that the applicant is not involved in any offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act; the proper facts have not been recorded in the FIR; the applicant is innocent and there is no criminal case against him; the impugned order is patently illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law and thus, liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the applicant is involved in black marketing of the rice and on spot inspection 205 bags of rice were recovered from his possession; so far as receipt

¶10

annexed with the petition is concerned, it's authenticity and validity cannot be looked into at this stage in the proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The investigation of the case was done in accordance with the provisions of law and, accordingly, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

¶11

In the instant matter, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, 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.

¶12

Perusal of record and on examination of document placed before the Court, its prima-facie established that an spot inspection was carried out by Supply Inspector and 205 bags of rice were recovered from the applicant stored for black marketing in open market. Keeping in view the recovery of the rice from the applicant and statement of witnesses recorded by police u/s 161 Cr.P.C., no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.

¶13

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 20.8.2024 Anil K. Sharma

¶15

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶16

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

Ramphool v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramphool 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Nasruddin and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Prajapati vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahil Gulati and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Nafees vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar vs State of Up and Another