Vishal Jhamnani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2023

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vishal Jhamnani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2023

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                              1
                            IN    THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 1877 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           VISHAL JHAMNANI S/O SACHANAND JHAMNANI, AGED
                           ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMEN R/O
                           KHABER LINE MADHAO NAGAR KATNI (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI ADITYA JAIN - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                                 KOTWALI DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    S.H.O. POLICE STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT
                                 KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DEEPAK SRIVASTAV S/O NARESH SRIVASTAV,
                                 AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O 52 SUKHDEV VIHAR
                                 MATHURA ROAD NEW DELHI (DELHI)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL )

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of entire proceedings of Regular Criminal Trial No.13863/2022 and also to quash the First Information Report No.0315/2022 dated 14.05.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 13.05.2022, the respondent No.3 filed a complaint with police that Indian Electronics Shop Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 2/4/2023 2:01:52 PM 2 situated near Shankar Talkies is selling duplicate products which do not belong to Anchor Company having not been manufactured by it. Thereafter, the shop in question was visited by the Police Official along with the complainant and certain goods were seized on which the logo of Anchor Company was mentioned but the seized goods were found to be duplicate and fake and on the strength of a letter of authority contained in Annexure P/4, respondent No.3 has conducted an identification of products. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that firstly on the date of incident, the present petitioner was siting in the shop but he is not the owner of said shop and the shop in question is run by his uncle and as the uncle was out of station on that particular day, the present petitioner was sitting in the shop. Counsel for the petitioner contends that on the strength of a letter of authority which is contained in Annexure P/4, respondent No.3 could not have inspected and concluded that the goods were duplicate and fake. Thus, counsel submits that the First Information Report and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that petitioner herein was found in the shop and there is a seizure of various goods which have been found to be duplicate and fake. The Police has rightly registered a case against the petitioner and therefore, whether the goods are fake or not ? the petitioner is owner or in-charge or manager of the shop or not ? and the respondent No.3 is authority is valid or not ?, all questions are to be dealt with by the Court and can only be adjudicated once the evidence is adduced by the prosecution as well as by the present petitioner. Thus, counsel submits that at this stage, no interference is warranted in the present case.

4 . Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and persued the record.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 2/4/2023 2:01:52 PM 3

5. This Court finds force in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent/State. In the present case, after registration of First Information Report against the present petitioner, the charge-sheet has been filed and now the issue is a subject matter of Regular Criminal Trial No.13863/2022, therefore, any interference at this premature stage is not warranted more particularly when the grounds taken recourse to in the present petition being disputed, need to be adjudicated upon sifting of evidence which has not been adduced by the prosecution as yet.

6. Accordingly, in view of this Court at this stage no interference is warrant in the present case and thus, the present petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 2/4/2023 2:01:52 PM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court