Allahabad High Court
Viresh Singh vs State Of U.P. on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17158 of 2022
Applicant :- Viresh Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinayak Mithal,Kalpana Singh,Pranshu Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Ms. Kalpana Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 13.08.2019 as well as summoning order dated 24.10.2019 and the proceeding of Case No.2382 of 2019 (State Vs. Bijendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No.165 of 2016, under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station-Khergarh, District-Firozabad.
Brief facts of the case are that on 17.09.2016, an F.I.R. was lodged by Rajveer Singh, District Supply Inspector, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act against three accused persons including the applicant with the allegations that during spot inspection, black marketing of wheat was found. After investigation, final report was submitted on 02.03.2017 on the ground of non-availability of evidence against the applicant, however, by the order of the S.S.P. concerned, further investigation was conducted in the matter after giving notice to the applicant as required under Section 41 Cr.P.C. and statements of cardholders as well as other persons were also recorded, after which charge sheet has been submitted on 13.08.2019, after taking cognizance, applicants have been summoned on 24.10.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant did not have notice about the case, therefore, applicant was not aware of this summoning order. She further submits that once on the basis of statements of persons, final report has been submitted, therefore, charge sheet so submitted on the basis of statements of same witnesses is liable to be set aside, the summoning order has been passed without application of judicial mind and in mechanical manner, therefore, the proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that after perusal of the records, and service of notice to the applicant, charge sheet has been submitted after carrying out the detailed investigation. He further submits that the other submission made by counsel for the applicant is related to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be seen here.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
This Court finds that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty,
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, and the present application is, accordingly, dismissed.`
Order Date :- 13.9.2022
Rahul.
