Back
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
BHUPENDRA PARMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing fir for lack of evidence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against the petition. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning on legal provisions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. discharge of petitioners from charges. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and the subsequent charge-sheet at Crime No. 356/2021, registered at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Indore under sections 188 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 read with section 3 of EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT , 1897 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1897 Act’) and section 24 of M.P. Rajya Ayurvigyan Adhiniyam, 1987.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was lodged on 17-4-2021, against one Nilesh Chauhan by the complainant Inspector Amrita Solanki on the ground that she has come to know that certain persons are black marketing the Remdesivir injections by creating a fake need, and pursuant thereto one person is about to come to sell the Remdesivir injection for Rs. 22,000/- at Choithram Square, and when she got to Choithram Square, she apprehended Nilesh Chauhan, who was found in possession of one Remde
The prosecution must prove each element of the charged offences; mere possession of medication during a public health crisis is not sufficient for liability under IPC or related statutes.
A public servant's complaint is mandatory for prosecuting under Section 188 IPC, and the prosecution must prove intent and action for charges under Section 420 IPC.
The court ruled that proceedings against the accused were unsustainable due to lack of essential legal elements and failure to comply with mandatory complaint procedures as per law.
The endangerment of lives through the sale of spurious medical products during a pandemic is a serious offence and may lead to the rejection of bail applications.
The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the trial and to ensure that the evidence is not tampered with and the witnesses are not threatened.
The court emphasizes that the severity of an offense does not alone justify denial of bail, balancing it against the evidence and absence of interference risks in a trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
