Allahabad High Court
Arvind Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141407 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39424 of 2024 Applicant :- Arvind Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Uttar Kumar Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under section 528 BNSS has been preferred to quash the charge-sheet no.105 of 2021 dated 04.08.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 13.08.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.14871 of 2024 (State vs. Arvind Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.88 of 2019, under sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, P.S. Dhata, District- Fatehpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Fatehpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding initiated against the applicant is illegal and against the material available on record; the material of investigation does not disclose commission of any alleged offences against the applicant and as such the proceedings initiated against the applicant including the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order are liable to be quashed by this Court.
4. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for applicant relied upon the judgement pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided in Criminal Appeal No.1011 of 2004 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1511 of 2004] on dated 13.09.2004. The ratio of judgement which has been relied upon by learned counsel for applicant is that there is no substance for implication of appellant in pursuance to section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, but the appellant was convicted on committing offence in terms of section 3 read with section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the judgement and order of conviction has been put under challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court and the same was allowed by way of remitting back the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of the appeal preferred at the behest of appellant for seeking quashing of the judgement and order through which he had already been convicted.
5. The second judgement relied upon by learned counsel for applicant has been passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.19647 of 2009, decided on 15.10.2009 in Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and Another, wherein cognizance order has been put under challenge, which has merely signed by learned court concerned and rest of the information has been filled up by the employee of court concerned and the same has been held as nonest since no application of mind has been utilized by learned court concerned.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant.
7. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that certain facts are little bit different with the judgements relied upon by learned counsel for applicant, i.e., judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Prakash Babu (supra) was on the basis of finding recorded by learned trial court whereupon the adjudication has been made by High Court over the appeal preferred at the behest of appellant and as such the conclusion drawn by learned trial court as well as by High Court has been interfered by Hon'ble Apex Court and on certain observation the matter has been remitted back to High Court for reconsideration of the appeal. In the case, which has been decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ankit (supra), the summoning order issued against the accused at the time of taking cognizance of offence under section 190 Cr.P.C. has been set-aside, since the same was on printed proforma by way of filling the blank by some concerned authority of court itself.
8. The instant matter is not at all covered in the parameter of the dictum pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court or by co-ordinate Bench of this Court since the observation whatsoever has been found erroneous over which the matter has been remitted back to the High Court by Hon'ble Apex Court is on the appeal preferred through which the order of conviction has been put under challenge, the order of cognizance of offence is also not as the same, which has been interfered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
9. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, in the instant matter the stage of trial is still pending wherein the charges has to be framed and it is also admitted fact that the applicant has never appeared before learned court concerned in pursuance of summoning order issued at the time of taking cognizance of offence. It is also apparent on the face of record that in respect of report submitted by concerned Sub-Divisional Officer in favour of applicant's shop in shape of fair price shop, which was conducted by the applicant is still pending to be restored in his favour and as such the reports relied upon by learned counsel for applicant are meaningless unless the fair price shop which was conducted by the applicant has not been restored in his favour. The grounds taken up for preferring instant application for seeking quashing of the entire proceedings are not convincing one and as such application lacks merit for seeking any interference at this stage by this Court.
10. The instant application stands dismissed accordingly.
11. However, it is made clear that in case applicant surrenders before learned court concerned and apply for bail, his bail application may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, including the law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825).
Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Saif