Abhishek Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Abhishek Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the applicant to move a discharge application before the trial court within ten days; upon such application being moved, the trial court to consider and decide it in accordance with the law in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), including the factual matrix, within a further period of 45 days. No quashing ordered.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 23.12.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.129412 of 2024 and the charge sheet dated 11.10.2024 in Case Crime No.171 of 2024 ought to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS.

Court's answer

Liberty granted to the applicant to move a discharge application before the trial court within ten days; if such application is moved, the trial court shall consider and decide it in accordance with the law laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), including the factual matrix of the case, within a further period of 45 days. The quashing prayer was not decided on merits.

Ratio / Principle

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Shree Prakash Singh, J.) — Application under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS by Abhishek Agarwal seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 23.12.2024 (Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, Criminal Case No.129412 of 2024) and charge sheet dated 11.10.2024 arising out of Case Crime No.171 of 2024, Ss. 318(4), 319(2), 183 BNS, 2023 and Ss. 11, 12 UP Molasses Control Act, 1964, P.S. Banthara, Lucknow — Applicant pleaded he held a valid molasses licence and was falsely implicated due to enmity with authorities; his own FIR against company and Excise Department officials had led to a pending departmental enquiry — Court, with no objection from the State, did not decide quashing on merits; liberty granted to move a discharge application within ten days, to be considered and decided per State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, including the factual matrix, within a further 45 days — Application disposed of (order dated 22.8.2025).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49364

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 971 of 2025 Applicant :- Abhishek Agarwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar,Kazim Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

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

Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.129412 of 2024 (State of UP Vs. Aditya Kumar Thakur and Ors.) as well as charge sheet dated 11.10.2024 arising out of Case Crime No.171 of 2024 under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 183 BNS, 2023 and Sections 11, 12 of UP Molasses Control Act, 1964, Police Station- Banthara, District- Lucknow.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is having the valid licence of Molasses and on the date of raid, he was a valid licence holder of Molasses but due to some enmity with the Authorities, they concocted the story and lodged the first information report and this is a best example of false and malicious prosecution. He further submits that the case of the applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. He further added that the applicant himself had lodged an FIR against the authorities of the company as well as the authorities of the Excise Department and, thereafter, the departmental enquiry was instituted, whereupon, the authorities involved were suspended and the enquiry is still going on.

After the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the interest of justice would be served, if this Court may be pleased to provide liberty to the applicant to move a discharge application before the learned trial court and the learned trial court may be directed to consider and decide the same within the stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this Court.

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid .

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the liberty is granted to the applicant to move discharge application before the trial court, within a period of ten days, and if, such application is moved by the applicant, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law laid down in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) including the factual matrix of the case, within further period of 45 days.

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 V. Sinha

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench