Allahabad High Court
Ashwini Kumar Chaudhary Alias ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 12 May, 2023
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:32883
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4690 of 2023
Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Chaudhary Alias Ashvani Verma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Govt. U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Ms. Suniti Sachan, Advocate assisted by Sri Prashant Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Saran, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge sheet dated 27.04.2005, arising out of Case Crime No.72/2005, under Section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Rule 19(a) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 as well as non-bailable warrant dated 03.12.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that accused/ applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case due to some ulterior reason.
4. Her further submission is that the content of the first information report does not disclose any ingredients, which are essential to constitute offence under Sections under Section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Rule 19(a) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. She has also submitted that even during investigation, no credible evidence could be collected against the present accused/ applicant. Despite, this fact, a charge sheet came to be laid mechanically against the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that due to the absence of present applicant in the Court concerned, the impugned non-bailable warrant was also issued against him. She has also submitted that the process of non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant is in contravention of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 9 SCC 791 and in Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the basis of aforesaid submissions, has submitted that the present proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of this Court and a malicious prosecution too, which deserves to be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently submitted that the law of quashing has been fairly settled in the celebrated judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866.
8. His further submission is that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2044 and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513, truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution version or defence version cannot be looked into at this stage. At such an early stage to rush of this Court for quashing itself is an abuse of process of this Court as the trial has not progressed substantially.
9. Thus, in view of aforesaid, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record including the first information report and the charge sheet laid against the present applicant, this Court is of considered view that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), R.P. Kapur's case (supra), Ramveer Upadhyay's case (supra) and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan's case (supra), no ground for quashing the instant proceeding exists.
11. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the proceedings under challenge is refused as this Court does not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the same. There is no abuse of court's process either.
12. It is needless to mention here that in the eventuality of filing of any application for cancellation of process issued against the applicant/praying for bail, the learned trial Court shall dispose of such application on its own merits, expeditiously, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin' case (supra) and in Inder Mohan Goswami's case (surpa) in respect of issuance of non-bailable warrant and in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another : 2023 LL (SC) 233 by keeping the order of issuing non-bailable warrant against the present applicant in abeyance for a period of eight weeks from today.
13. It is made clear that in case the present applicant fails to avail the benefit as aforesaid, the same shall stand automatically cease to exist without any further reference to this Court.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.5.2023
A.Dewal
