Dismissed¶15

Ramashray Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2025CRLR/7864/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court criminal revision CRLR 7864 of 2025; Ramashray Chauhan v. State of U.P.; revision against CJM Varanasi order dated 19.8.2025 rejecting discharge application in Criminal Case No. 208 of 2021 arising out of case crime No. 349 of 2020, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi; FIR of 18.8.2020 over alleged unauthorized sale of sanitizer in another company's name during Covid-19 (incident 13.7.2020); charge sheet filed 11.12.2020; counsel argued company-name difference and no trade-mark violation, matter left to trial; Court found no illegality or irregularity in impugned order and dismissed the revision on December 2, 2025 (Abdul Shahid, J.).

What did the court decide?

There is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order rejecting the revisionist's discharge application. ¶15

Ramashray Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7864 of 2025

¶3

Ramashray Chauhan

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	:	Pradeep Kumar Keshri
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 91

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶10

The present criminal revision has been preferred being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.8.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 208 of 2021 ( State UP Vs. Ramasharey Chauhan) arising out of case crime No. 349 of 2020, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi, by which the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected.

¶11

The brief contents of the FIR is that the alleged incident is of 13.7.2020 and the FIR was lodged on 18.8.2020. The period was of Covid, where the sanitizer was in great demand and the people were suffering at large. That was unprecedented time of Covid-19 and at that time, said FIR has been lodged.There are allegation on the revisionist that he was selling sanitizer in the name of company which he was not entitled to sell. On that allegation, the FIR was lodged and the charge sheet has been filed on 11.12.2020.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there are difference in the name of the company. There is no violation of trade mark. That is subject matter of evidence which could be seen and tried in trial.

¶13

CRLR No. 7864 of 2025

¶14

¶15