Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9403 of 2021

Applicant :- Smt. Akbari

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Goyal

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the

State and perused the record.

The applicants through this application under section 482 Cr.P.C.

have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to

quash the charge sheet dated 24.10.2020 as well as cognizance order

dated 17.02.2021 as well as proceedings of Case No.678 of 2021

(State Vs. Akbari) arising out of Case Crime No.0133 of 2020, under

Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Behat, district

Saharanpur, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial

magistrate-1st, Saharanpur.

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant

had been falsely implicated by the opposite party no.2 as no such

occurrence had taken place and the present prosecution has been

instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his

contention.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that after completion of

investigation the police has submitted the charge sheet against the

applicants following which the learned Magistrate has taken

cognizance. The cognizance order is perfectly valid and no abuse of

process is apparently seen in the impugned order, hence the

applicants prayer is liable to be quashed.

At this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the

applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed

questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be

seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of

R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of

Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.

P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another

(Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused

cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got

right of discharge under Sections 239 or 227/228 and 245 Cr.P.C. as

the case may be through a proper application a proper application

for the said purpose raising all the grounds/grievances which have

been taken in this application or which may have been taken for the

said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said

discharge application before the Trial Court.

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on

record, this Court find that there is no justification for quashing the

entire proceeding as well as impugned summoning order of the

aforementioned case.

The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

However, it is directed that if the applicants apply for bail, their

prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view

of the settled law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021.

Order Date :- 15.3.2022

R./

Digitally signed by RAJEEV KUMAR

SACHDEVA

Date: 2022.03.16 17:21:43 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad