Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 101
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Vivek D Wakechaure – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another – Respondent
APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 103 of 2016 at Allahabad
Petitioner: Vikas Budhwar and Vaibhav Tripathi
Respondent: G.A.
The court ruled that allegations against the applicant did not constitute a cognizable offence and quashed the proceedings as an abuse of process of law.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of charge sheet - Application filed for quashing charge sheet and proceedings against the applicant, a Senior Mobile Lab Officer, for alleged misconduct during inspection of a petrol pump - The court found that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence and were an abuse of process of law. (Paras 2, 10, 24)
(B) Judicial Mind - Summoning order issued without application of mind is contrary to established legal principles - The court emphasized that printed proforma summons should not be used without proper judicial consideration. (Paras 17, 19)
(C) Delay in Filing - The court noted that the delay of four years in filing the application under Section 156(3) CrPC was not satisfactorily explained and could be fatal to the case. (Paras 9, 20)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, while performing his duties, inspected a petrol pump and found discrepancies leading to the termination of the dealership. The informant later filed a complaint alleging harassment, which led to criminal proceedings against the applicant.
Findings of Court:
The court found no prima facie case against the applicant and ruled that the FIR was an abuse of process, quashing the proceedings.
Issues: The main issues included whether the allegations constituted a cognizable offence and the validity of the summoning order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations did not make out a case for criminal proceedings and emphasized the need for judicial application of mind in issuing summons.
Result: Application allowed; proceedings quashed.
1. Heard Shri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shashi Dhar P andey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the records.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet no.06 of 2015 including entire proceeding emanating therefrom being Case No.1789 of 2015 (State Vs. Vivek D Wakechaure) (Case Crime No.44/2014) u/s 418, 420, 427, 465, 467, 471, 472, 474 IPC, P.S.- Chiragon, District- Jhansi pending before A.C.J.M.- Ist, Jhansi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 'Senior Mobile Lab Officer' in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and he was assigned the job of checking the dispensing units of distributors (petrol pump herein) as well as quality check of petroleum products being sold from the petrol pumps pertaining to Agra Region. On 12.09.2009, the applicant along with his team, inspected a petrol pump in District- Jhansi (Agra Region) i.e. M/s Bhagwan & Company, and it was found that the dispensing unit of the first informant's petrol pump are malfunctioning from the nozzle and quality of the diesel was also found malfunctioning. The same was sent to the lab for further investigation. A random inspection report dated 12.09.2009 was prepared by the applicant mentioning therein “HSD DU Short delivering 70 ml per strike short”. Thereafter, the sales and supplies of the petrol pump of the first informant was suspended. The recovered articles were sent to the respective labs immediately and as per report of the Quality Control Lab of the Corporation at Mathura, vide dated 17.09.2009 (as per marketing discipline guidelines), it was found that the sample does not meet the specification as per IS-1460-2005 (latest version) in Sulphur content and it was found that the FBP is 360o C and the total recovery is 96%.
4. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the first informant, and after giving full opportunity of hearing to him, the dealership agreement was terminated by the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation vide order dated 08.12.2010.
5. Though, in the dealership agreement dated 19.12.1982, it was clearly mentioned that in case of any dispute, the matter would be referred back to the sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication and this arbitration clause was also mentioned in the termination letter. The informant instead of availing the arbitration, after three years of passing of termination order, made an appeal on 02.04.2013 before the Executive Director- Retail and Appellate Authority, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. During pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the first informant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC dated 13.08.2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, in which, it was alleged that the dealership was allotted to the opposite party no. 2 in the year 1982 in the category of SC/ST. Since then, the officials of the corporation had been harassing him to get any partnership with a general category person. Due to this harassment, they came to the petrol pump of the applicant and as a part of the harassment, the applicant had investigated the petrol pump and initiated proceedings against him. The counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant had carried out his duty in the official capacity and no FIR could have been lodged against the person for carrying on his official duty. This was treated as a complaint by the court below vide order dated 06.09.2013. After that, the statement of first informant was recorded under Section 200 CrPC. Though the court has treated as a complaint, still the opposite party no. 2 chose to file an application under Section 482 CrPC in this Court being Application U/S 482 No. 34147 of 2013 (Bhagwan Das v. State of UP & Ors.), in which, it is held as under :
- “I deem it proper to observe that the applicant shall have the right to move before the conce
