Allahabad High Court
Shahana @ Noorjahan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16982 of 2022
Applicant :- Shahana @ Noorjahan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State.
The instant application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of charge sheet dated 3.6.2015 relates to Case Crime No.84 of 2015, under Sections 274, 275 and 420 IPC and Section 18/27 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Moradabad as Special Sessions Trial No. 160 of 2015.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in respect of the same incident initially FIR of the present case was lodged and thereafter a complaint was also filed on same facts and both the proceedings are pending in the same court which is not permissible as for the same offences a person can not be prosecuted twice. He further submitted that as the matter also relates to the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and charge sheet has also been filed under Section 18/27 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, therefore, in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 2.8.2018 passed in Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.20338 of 2018 (Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others) even the FIR of the present case was bad as no FIR can be lodged under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and in view of the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma's case (supra) only complaint can be lodged, therefore, proceedings pursuant to the FIR is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA submits that the present matter is of the year 2015 and in which charges against the applicant have already been framed and when applicant failed to appear before the court below then NBW was also issued against him. Therefore, no interference at this stage by this Court is required.
Learned AGA further submits that merely on the ground that in respect of the same incident a criminal complaint later on was filed, the proceedings pursuant to the present FIR which was lodged earlier then the complaint cannot be quashed and, therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.
The record of the case suggests that the FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant on 25.2.2015 and thereafter charge sheet was submitted and the trial of the case is pending in which charges have already been framed. From the record it further reflects that on 27.7.2015 opposite party no.2 also filed a criminal complaint under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act against applicant and proceedings of both the cases are pending.
The judgment ofAshok Kumar Sharma (supra) relied by learned counsel for applicant is distinguishable on facts as it was a case relates to only provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court held that the FIR is bad as the FIR under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act cannot be lodged and in respect of provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act only complaint case can be filed. However, the present case also relates to Sections 274, 275 and 420 IPC, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the applicants in view of the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma's case (supra).
In case at hand, indisputably, the FIR of the present case was lodged earlier then the complaint, therefore, proceedings of the present case which was instituted pursuant to the FIR cannot be quashed.
Further, the matter is of the year 2015 and the charges have already been framed and trial is pending and NBW has already been issued against the applicant.
Therefore, in view of the reasons stated above, in my opinion, no good ground is made out to interfere in the present matter at this stage.
Accordingly, the present application is devoid of merit and is, hereby dismissed.
However, it is open for the applicant to appear before the court concerned and file recall application against the NBW issued against her. If such an application is moved, then the lower court is expected to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.8.2022
SKM
