JAIVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents are present.

(2.) This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 31/12/2020 and the entire criminal proceedings of case no.175 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Jaiveer Singh) arising out of case crime/FIR No.0191 of 2020 dated 03/09/2020 U/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act registered at P.S.- Doghat, District Baghpat, pending in the court of learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant contended that from the bare reading of the FIR dated 03/09/2020, it becomes apparent that several vague and unbelievable allegations have been leveled against the applicant with ultimate allegations to the effect that after the inspection of the applicant's fair price shop 20.47 quintals of wheat and 17.85 quintals of rice were found in excess quantity. The excess quantity of stock does not mean and indicate that there has been some contravention of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Essentian Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) order 2016 and it does not give rise to the presumption of black marketing. Therefore, it cannot at all be presumed that excess quantity of stock was to be used for black marketing. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a case of personal grudge which is evident from the allegations of the FIR which indicates that such an inspection has been made in pursuance of the oral order of the authorities. In fact, the informant was demanding illegal gratification keeping in view, the large number of the card-holders attached with the fair price shop of the applicant but since the applicant always refusing the fulfillment of the said demand, the informant- Supply Inspector was threatening the applicant to face the consequences and in fact, he ultimately succeeded in his object by getting the said first information report dated 03/09/2020. Learned counsel placed reliance in para-7 in the case of (State of Haryana and ors vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and ors) 1992 AIR (SC) 604 which reads as under: