Allahabad High Court
RAVINDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The High Court held that the material before it was limited to the prosecution’s prima facie case and, absent a clear abuse of process, the application for quash under Section 482 CrPC could not be entertained.
Summary
The applicants, Ravindra Kumar and his son Asmit Kumar, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS Act and Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 940 of 2025 arising from FIR 09/2025 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. They contended that the alleged loss of wheat, rice and sugar was caused by co‑accused Shahzeb Khan who forcibly took the grains to recover a loan, and that they lacked mens rea, invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Nathulal v. State of M.P. to argue that the proceedings were an abuse of process. The State opposed the quash petition, emphasizing that the material discrepancy in stock warrants trial and that the Nathulal precedent applied only after a full trial. The Court examined the scope of the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, relying on the principles laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and the four‑step test from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. (2025). It held that the material before the court was merely the prosecution’s case, and the court could not assess the defence or conduct a mini‑trial at the quash stage. Consequently, the application for quash was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence warranting continuation of criminal proceedings.
- Whether the applicants’ lack of mens rea and the alleged actions of a co‑accused constitute grounds to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s precedent in Nathulal v. State of M.P. is applicable at the pre‑trial stage for quashing the case.
Legislation cited
- BNSS Act — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 528
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 3, 7
Subjects
- Essential Commodities Act
- Section 482 CrPC
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- mens rea
- abuse of process
- fair price shop
- investigation
- high court inherent powers
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51317 of 2025
Ravindra Kumar And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avijit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Avijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram
Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material
brought on record.
3. This application under Section 528 BNSS / under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the applicants- Ravindra Kumar and Asmit Kumar, with the
prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as
impugned charge-sheet dated 31.05.2025 & cognizance/summoning order
dated 06.08.2025 in Criminal Case No. 940 of 2025 (State Vs. Ravindra
Kumar & others) arising out of FIR No. 09 of 2025, under Section 3/7 of E.C.
Act, 1955, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur, pending in the Court of
A.C.J.M.-Ist, Rampur, with a further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid
case be stayed during the pendency of the present application.
4. The facts in the present case are that a first information report was lodged
on 13.01.2025 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants, Shahzeb
Khan and Sonu under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
alleging therein that the applicant Ravindra Kumar is the fair price shop dealer.
A complaint regarding irregularity was received on which physical verification
of stock was conducted wherein his son Asmit Kumar another applicant gave
a written statement that his father had become ill and he was running the
shop. For the treatment of his father Rs. 50,000/- was taken from Shahzeb
Khan on loan which was being asked to be returned but they could not return
it. Shahzeb Khan then forcibly in the month of January 2025 came and called
Sonu and sold wheat 29.64 quintal and rice 33.76 quintal and took away the
whole money. Despite stopping they did not agree to it. On inspection it was
found that as per the stocks godown should have 42.23 quintal of wheat,
NA528 No. 51317 of 2025
2
48.26 quintal of rice and 60 kilogram of sugar but physically in the godown
31.03 quintal of wheat, 33.37 quintal of rice and 60 kilogram of sugar were
found less which shows that there has been irregularity.
5. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet dated 31.05.2025 was filed
against Ravindra Kumar, Asmit Kumar and Shahzeb Khan for offence under
Section 3/7 of E.C. Act whereas Manish Gupta @ Sonu was not charge-
sheeted and his name was mentioned in column 12 of the same. The court of
the A.C.J.M.-Ist, Rampur took cognizance upon the same and summoned the
accused for offence under Section 3/7 of E.C. The present petition has thus
been filed before this Court.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant no.1-
Ravindra Kumar is the license holder of fair price shop. His son Asmit Kumar
was looking after the shop as his father was ill during which period he had
taken loan from co-accused Shahzeb Khan and thus Shahzeb Khan was
asking for its return which could not be arranged and thus he took away the
said food-grains and sold them in the market and took the money from it. It is
submitted that the same was told initially to the authorities concerned and is
also the case of the applicants. It is submitted that the applicants have no
mens rea in the present matter. It is submitted that the material was sold by
stranger who has also been charge-sheeted and thus the applicants are not
involved in the present matter. The judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Nathulal Vs. State of M.P.: AIR 1966 SC 43 paragraph 4, 5 & 6 has been
placed to submit that since the applicants had no mens rea, the proceedings
against them are abuse of process of Court. It is submitted that the
proceedings thus be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it
is evident that on inspection the food-grains in the godown of the applicant
no.-1 were found to be less. An explanation has been given by the applicant
no.2 who is the son of the license holder about it that co-accused has forcibly
taken away the said food-grains and sold it in the market and collected the
money and has settled account regarding the loan taken by them. The same
at best can be a defence of the applicants to be taken up in the trial at the
appropriate stage. Even the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Nathulal (supra) as is being relied was after the full trial and thus the stage in
the same was different and is distinguishable on the facts of the present
matter. In the present matter evidence is still to be led before the trial court.
The law with regard to quashing is trite.The scope and ambiguity of powers to
be exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been elaborately dealt with and
NA528 No. 51317 of 2025
3
considered by the Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P)
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 and it has been observed
and held as under:
"13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in
Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-
44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18], the following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate
into cognizable offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to
go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in
the ?rarest of rare cases?. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for
quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has
been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by
this Court.)
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an
ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police,
since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The
inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or
prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not
overlapping.
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in
miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the
stage of investigation of offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
NA528 No. 51317 of 2025
4
13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all
facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation
by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It
would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating
officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate
which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known
procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide
power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent
duty on the Court.
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the
parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly
the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the
jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the
Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider
whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out
a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
9. The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Versus State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 has laid a four-
step test for High Courts to follow while considering petitions for quashing
criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It
has been held as under:
"20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised
by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound,
reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable
quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the
assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material
NA528 No. 51317 of 2025
5
is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint,
i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been
refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot
be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of
process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High
Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of
power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power,
besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would
otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising
therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the
conviction of the accused. [(See:Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal
Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]"
10. Law for quashing is strict and trite. The present case does not fall within
the category of cases as enumerated in the judgements of Apex Court in the
case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (Supra) and also on the four-steps
test in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (Supra). No ground for
interference is made out. It is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the
material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the
defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit
by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the
case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case
has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the
defence of the accused. Further it is also well settled that that while exercising
powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a
mini trial.
11. In view of the same, looking to the facts and circumstances, the present
application U/s 528 BNSS is dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
April 8, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…