# Ajay Garg & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1263
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-21
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 40122 of 2023
- **Bench:** Gajendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-garg-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-50876
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 202, 202(1) & 482 -
Water Pollution (Prevention and Control )
Act, 1974 - Sections 25(5), 25, 26, 43, 44
& 49 - Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 22 -
Application
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
-
Quashing of entire criminal proceedings -
Environmental Law - inland surface Water
Pollution - Authorization to file complaint -
Procedural
compliance
under
Section
202
1264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. - in a Complaint Case, filed under
Sections 43/44 of the Act, 1974, against M/s
Teerthanker
Mahaveer
University
-
The
complaint, alleging unauthorized discharge of
sewage without a treatment plant - who lacked
specific authorization from the U.P. Pollution
Control Board and violating section 49 of the Act
- Procedural and legal infirmities - Court finds
that, the University had complied with legal
norms, obtained final consent in 2020, and no
vicarious liability was established - court held
that, delegated authority cannot be further
delegated
(delegata
potestas
non
potest
delegari) - Moreover, the Magistrate failed to
conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section
202(1) Cr.P.C., despite the accused residing
outside
the
court's
territorial
jurisdiction,
rendering the cognizance and summoning
orders invalid - Accordingly, the application
stands allowed and the proceedings is quashed
against the applicant.
(Para - 15, 16, 20)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

2 All. Ajay Garg & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1263

35. No litigant can play 'hide and
seek' with the courts or adopt 'pick and
choose'. True facts ought to be disclosed as
the Court knows law, but not facts. One,
who does not come with candid facts and
clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court
with
soiled
hands.
Suppression
or
concealment
of
material
facts
is
impermissible to a litigant or even as a
technique of advocacy. In such cases, the
Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi
and such applicant is required to be dealt
with for contempt of court for abusing the
process of the court. {K.D. Sharma v. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12
SCC 481].

36. Another settled canon of
administration of justice is that no litigant
should be permitted to misuse the judicial
process by filing frivolous petitions. No
litigant has a right to unlimited drought
upon the court time and public money in
order to get his affairs settled in the
manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice
should not be used as a licence to file
misconceived
and
frivolous
petitions.
(Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K.
Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530).

9. Thus, the above noticed facts and
circumstances of this case clearly establish
that the applicants have adopted unfair
means to make a repeat attempt to get the
relief from this Court, which earlier stood
rejected and this conduct of the applicants
have delayed the trial of complaint for a
long period of approximately 13 years. This
has added insult to the injury of the
complaint, who all these years has been
contesting this frivolous case, and is still
waiting to pursue the trial of the complaint
case, therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit
case for imposing exemplary costs upon the
applicants, in view of the decision in
Kishore Samrite's case (Supra).

10. Resultantly, the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with a
costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to the
complainant within a period of one month.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh is
directed to ensure the recovery of cost and
payment to the complainant.

11. Further considering the delay in
commencement of the trial, it is ordered
that the trial be concluded expeditiously by
avoiding
unnecessary
adjournments,
preferably within a period of one year.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1263
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 40122 of 2023
with
Application u/s 482 No. 44609 of 2023

Ajay Garg & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mohammad Khalid, Sri Zain Abbas

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Jagannath Maurya

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 202, 202(1) & 482 -
Water Pollution (Prevention and Control )
Act, 1974 - Sections 25(5), 25, 26, 43, 44
& 49 - Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 22 -
Application
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
-
Quashing of entire criminal proceedings -
Environmental Law - inland surface Water
Pollution - Authorization to file complaint -
Procedural
compliance
under
Section
202
1264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. - in a Complaint Case, filed under
Sections 43/44 of the Act, 1974, against M/s
Teerthanker
Mahaveer
University
-
The
complaint, alleging unauthorized discharge of
sewage without a treatment plant - who lacked
specific authorization from the U.P. Pollution
Control Board and violating section 49 of the Act
- Procedural and legal infirmities - Court finds
that, the University had complied with legal
norms, obtained final consent in 2020, and no
vicarious liability was established - court held
that, delegated authority cannot be further
delegated
(delegata
potestas
non
potest
delegari) - Moreover, the Magistrate failed to
conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section
202(1) Cr.P.C., despite the accused residing
outside
the
court's
territorial
jurisdiction,
rendering the cognizance and summoning
orders invalid - Accordingly, the application
stands allowed and the proceedings is quashed
against the applicant.
(Para - 15, 16, 20)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. S.K. Alagh Vs St. of U.P.reported as (2002) 5
SCC 662,

2. Paritosh Kumar Vs U.O.I. & ors. 2014 (84)
ACC 143,

3. P. Pramila & ors. Vs St. of Karn. & anr., AIR
2015 SUPREME COURT 2495,

4. Krishna Nand Shastri @ K.N. Shastri & anr.
Vs St. of Jharkhand through its Inspector of
Drugs Deoghar - passed in Cr. M. P. No. 1525 of
2014,

5. Udai Shankar Awasthi Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
(2013) 2 SCC 435.,

6. Odi Jerang Vs Nabjyoti Baruah & ors.; 2023
Live Law (SC) 702.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. Since these applications arise out of
same complaint case, they have been heard together
and are being decided by a common order.
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40122 of 2023 is
being treated as a leading case.

2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today
are taken on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and
learned AGA for the State.

4. The present applications have been filed by
the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No.31 of 2013,
under Sections 43/44 of Water Pollution
(Prevention and Control ) Act, 1974, pending in the
court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution,
Lucknow.

5. The genesis of the present applications
arose when the opposite Party no.2 filed criminal
complaint against the M/s Teerthanker Mahaveer
University and other employees and directors of the
same (hereinafter referred as "University"), before
the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution,
Lucknow with wholly false, concocted, and
frivolous story. The university is a State minority
University established by the society Teerthanker
Mahaveer
Institute
of
Management
and
Technology under the U.P. Act No. 30 of 2008,
vide Government Order No. 154/Seventy-1-08-20
(13) / 2006 dated 06.02.2008, also all the
construction of the University including the medical
facilities in the same were constructed as per the
norms of the concerned authorities, after taking the
requisite permissions and sanction of plans.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the applicants that the opposite party no. 2, (U.C.
Shukla), is not authorized representative of U.P.
Pollution Control Board (hereinafter to be
referred as 'Board), who alleges that the
University is knowingly discharging its
noxious and polluted sewage, which met
with the nala, which met with the septic
tank stored in open pits which is likely to
2 All. Ajay Garg & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1265
cause inland surface pollution by seepage,
thereby causing continuous pollution on
land in the stream. He further alleged that
the University has not provided any sewage
treatment plant to treat its waste in
accordance with the standards laid by the
board,
and
hence
the
accused
has
committed an offence u/s 24 and 25 of the
Water Pollution (Prevention and Control)
Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Act of 1974").

7. Further submission is that neither
the applicants nor the University has acted
at that particular time, had committed any
offence as alleged in the complaint. Further
submission is that the university has
followed all the rules and regulations
prescribed by law at the time of its
establishment. Further submission is that as
per the procedure as well as the perusal of the
above-mentioned Government Order, it is
evident that there is no requirement to take
prior permission of the U.P. Pollution Control
Board. Further submission is that the
University being an educational institution
cannot be treated as an industry and the rules
applicable to the industries are not applicable
to the university, however as one of the
officials of the board visited the University
and directed the University to obtain
permission from the board and further
directed to establish sewage treatment plant,
under bona fide and good faith the University
made an application for grant of permission
on 20.05.2011, however the permission was
rejected by the Board on 21.09.2011 as there
were certain inadvertent technical errors in
the application, such as the Laboratory report
of the water test was not provided and other
such procedural formalities were also
committed by the Board.

8. It is further submitted that the another
application for grant of permission was made
by the University on 12.06.2013 and in the
said application, it had been specifically
mentioned that the work of the sewage
treatment plant has been initiated and the
same would be concluded in the year 2014.
Further submission is that in the said
application, it had been specifically stated
that the waste concerned was only generated
from residential blocks where the staff and
teachers lived and no other such noxious or
dangerous substance was being released by
the University. Further submission is that
before filing of the present compliant, no
show cause notice was ever served upon the
university or its officials in accordance with
Section 25(5) of the Act of 1974. Further
submission is that a co-ordinate Bench of this
Hon'ble Court observed that in case of S.K.
Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported as
(2002) 5 SCC 662, whereby it was held that
there is no such concept as vicarious
liability under criminal law. Hence, a
person cannot be held accountable for a
criminal act, solely, on account of his
designation in the company. In support of
his submission, learned counsel for the
applicants has placed reliance upon the
judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Paritosh Kumar Vs. Union of
India and others 2014 (84) ACC 143. Later
on, U.P. Pollution Control Board granted
consent under Section 25/26 of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 on 04.06.2020, as such, no offence
has been committed by the applicantsUniversity and in due course consent has
been granted and obtained.

9. It is further submitted that the
complaint has not been filed by the Board
nor its authorized agent rather it has been
filed by the one person called U.C. Shukla,
who has not been authorized specifically
for filing the complaint on behalf of the
Board. It is further submitted by the learned
1266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel for the applicants that no due
enquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. has
been conducted as is mandatory under the
provisions of Cr.P.C. as the accused persons
are residents of Moradabad district while
the Court situated at district-Lucknow. The
very
cognizance
order
as
well
as
summoning order is illegal and without
jurisdiction.

10. On the other hand, learned AGA
as well as the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 have opposed the
prayer and submitted that the applicant no.1
was working as a Director and applicant
no.2 was working as a Chairman in the said
company and all the other applicants in
connected matters, who are in-charge of,
and responsible to the University for the
conduct of, the business of the University.,
therefore, they are vicariously liable for
discharging the polluted sewage effluents
on the open land for percolation and
seepage to the nearby Nala and inland
surface water, beyond the standards laid
down by the Board, regarding which, the
present complaint case filed. It is further
submitted that complaint has been filed by
the person duly authorized by the Board
and due enquiry as contemplated under the
provisions of Cr.P.C. has been made before
summoning the accused/applicants.

11. I have considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties as well as the case laws and
have perused the record.

12. In this matter, as is evident from the
record that the complainant Board has
authorized its Officer to file the complaint
on behalf of the Board and Dr. U.C.
Shukla, Assistant Scientific Officer has
been nominated by Member Secretary to
file this complaint against the opposite
parties. It is also evident that such
authorization should be for a particular case
and
general
authorization
is
not
permissible. Dr. U.C. Shukla has not been
specifically authorized by the Board as is
apparent from the para 17 of the complaint
which is as follow:-"that the complainant
board has authorized its officer to file the
complaint on behalf of the Board and Dr.
U.C. Shukla, Assistant Scientific Officer
has been nominated by Member Secretary,
to file this complaint against the opposite
parties."

13. Section 49 Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 provides
for cognizance of offence under the Act.

49. Cognizance of offences.-(1)
No court shall take cognizance of any
offence under this Act except on a
complaint made by-

(a) a Board or any officer
authorized in this behalf by it; or

(b) any person who has given
notice of not less than sixty days, in the
manner prescribed, of the alleged offence
and of his intention to make a complaint, to
the Board or officer authorized as
aforesaid,

and no court inferior to that of a
Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial
Magistrate of the first class shall try any
offence punishable under this Act."

14. In the case of P. Pramila and
others Vs. State of Karnataka and
another, AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT
2495, it has been observed that the
appellants engaged in the business of
stocking iron ore, had allegedly violated
certain norms prescribed under Section 22
of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution)
Act,
1981.
So
Criminal
proceeding had been initiated against them.
2 All. Ajay Garg & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1267
They were challenged by application u/s
482
Cr.P.C.,
seeking
quashing
of
proceeding on the ground of inadequate
authorisation to file complaint. Hence,
either the Board or the Chairman of the
Board could have filed the complaints.

15. From the perusal of the records, it
is natural therefore to conclude, that the
complaint against the applicants was
neither filed by the Board nor its Chairman,
but was filed by the Assistant Scientific
Officer, Regional Office Moradabad (Dr.
U.C. Shukla), who was nominated by
Member Secretary, which shows that the
Board has authorized Member Secretary to
file the complaint case under the Act but
the Member Secretary instead of filing
complaint himself has nominated Dr. U.C.
Shukla to file the complaint. It is settled
proposition of law that a delegated
authority can not further delegate its power
to some other person (Delegata potesta non
potest deligari). As such, it appears that
criminal complaint, filed by the opposite
party no.2 against the M/s Teerthanker
Mahaveer University and other employees
and directors of the same (hereinafter
referred as "University"), before the learned
Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution,
Lucknow is without authority. Therefore,
the conclusion is reached from the perusal
of the record that the complaint has not
been lodged by the competent and duly
authorized person.

16. It is also evident from the record
that the court concerned while issuing
process u/s 204 Cr.P.C. has not complied
with the mandatory provisions of Section
202(1) Cr.P.C. as amended in the year,
2005, with an object that the enquiry in
relation to the accused person residing
outside territorial jurisdiction has to be
satisfactory and sufficient made, merely
treating the documents filed by the
complainant u/s 202 Cr.P.C. It cannot be
said that enquiry as contemplated under
Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. has been carried out.

17. In the case of Krishna Nand
Shastri @ K.N. Shastri and another Vs.
State of Jharkhand through its Inspector
of Drugs Deoghar passed in Cr.M.P. No.
1525 of 2014, it has been observed that the
person who is looking into the day to day
affairs of the company and was responsible
at the time of offence can only be
prosecuted and in that view of the matter in
absence of any averment to that effect
vicarious liability upon the petitioners are
not liable to be fastened upon them as there
is no such averment in the complaint
petition and the case of the petitioners is
fully covered in view of the judgment
rendered in the case of State of (N.C.T. of
Delhi) v. Rajeev Khurana (supra). So far
the record further suggest that in absence of
any enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C the
learned
court
has
taken
cognizance.
Reference may be made to the case of Udai
Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P. and
another, (2013) 2 SCC 435. Paragraph
no.40 of the said judgement is quoted
below:

"40. The Magistrate had issued
summons without meeting the mandatory
requirement of section 202 Cr. P.C though
the appellants were outside his territorial
jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 202
Cr.P.C were amended vide Amendment Act,
2005, making it mandatory to postpone the
issue of process where the accused resides
in
an
area
beyond
the
territorial
jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned.
The same was found necessary in order to
protect innocent persons from being
harassed by unscrupulous persons and
making it obligatory upon the Magistrate to
1268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
enquire into the case himself, or to direct
investigation to be made by police officer,
or by such other person as he thinks fit for
the purpose of finding out whether or not,
there was sufficient ground for proceeding
against
the
accused
before
issuing
summons in such cases."

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Odi Jerang Vs. Nabjyoti Baruah
and other; 2023 Live Law (SC) 702 has
held that " in a case where one of the
accused is a resident of a place outside the
jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate,
following the procedure under Section
202(1) Cr.P.C. is mandatory".

19. The impugned order dated
08.05.2014 passed by the court below is
reproduced here-in-under:-

"08.05.2014

पुकार करायी गयी। पुकार पर पररवादी िोडष के प्रवप्रर्
सहायक उपप्रस्थत हैं।

पररवादी एक लोकसेवक है एवं उिके द्वारा पदीय
कतषव्यों के प्रिवषहि के प्रलए उक्त पररवाद प्रलप्रखत रूप में दाप्रखल
प्रकया गया है। अतः पररवादी के ियाि अ०र्ारा 200 द०ि०सं०
की आवश्यकता िहीं है। र्ारा 202 दं०ि०सं० के अंतगषत मूल
दस्तावेज संलग्िक- 1 लगायत 12 दाप्रखल प्रकये गये हैं।

पररवादी िोडष द्वारा अप्रर्कृत िप्रतप्रिप्रर् डा० यू० सी०
शुक्ला द्वारा प्रवपक्षीगण मै० तीथषकर महावीर यूप्रिवप्रसषटी आप्रद के
प्रवरूद्ध िस्तुत पररवाद अ० र्ारा 43 एवं 44 जल िदूर्ण (प्रिवारण
एवं प्रियंत्रण) 1974 पर सुिा गया। पत्रावली का अवलोकि प्रकया
गया।

पररवाद के समथषि में पररवादी द्वारा र्ारा 202
दं०ि०सं० के अंतगषत दस्तावेजीय साक्ष्य में संलग्िक-1 सदस्य
सप्रिव द्वारा कमपिी को जल अप्रर्प्रियम के िाप्रवर्ािो के अिुपालि
हेतु िेप्रर्त पत्र की िप्रत, संलग्िक-2 सदस्य सप्रिव द्वारा कमपिी को
िेप्रर्त पत्र वास्ते अस्वीकार प्रकये जािे सहमप्रत आवेदि, संलग्िक-3
िश्नगत प्रवश्वप्रवद्यालय द्वारा सदस्य सप्रिव को िेप्रर्त पत्र प्रदिांप्रकत
12.06.2013 संलग्िक-4 िोप्रटस आि इ्सपेक्शि प्रदिांप्रकत
19.07.2013
संलग्िक-5
प्रिरीक्षण
आख्या
प्रदिांक
9.07.2013, संलग्िक-6 िोप्रटस आि इ्टे्शि टू हैव सैमपल
एिालाइज, संलग्िक-7 िोिामाष टू एकमपिी प्रद सैमपल आि
इण्डस्रीज, संलग्िक-8 प्रवश्लेर्ण आख्या प्रदिांक 25.07.2013,
संलग्िक-9 श्रेत्रीय अप्रर्कारी मुरादािाद द्वारा अप्रियुक्त सं०-15 को
िेप्रर्त पत्र प्रदिांक 16.08.2013, संलग्िक-10 अप्रियोजिात्मक
कायषवाही हेतु अध्यक्ष उ०ि० िदूर्ण प्रियंत्रण िोडष द्वारा अिुमोप्रदत
िस्ताव, संलग्िक-11 िोडष प्रिणषय प्रदिांक 12.12.1981 एवं
संलग्िक-12 पररवाद दाप्रखल करिे हेतु सदस्य सप्रिव द्वारा जारी
िाप्रर्कार पत्र की मूल िप्रत दाप्रखल की गयी।

पररवाद पत्र एवं 202 द०प्र०सं० के अन्िगाि प्रपत्र
को देखिे हुये प्रथमदृष्टया न्यायालय इस निष्कषा पर पहुाँचिी है नक,
प्रथमदृष्टया नवपक्षीगणों द्वारा प्रश्नगि उद्योग का संचालि उ०प्र०
प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोडा की सहमनि के नबिा नकया जा रहा था एवं
संचानलि करिे हुये प्रदूनषि उत्प्रवाह निस्िाररि नकया जा रहा था जो
प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोडा के नििााररि मािकों से अत्यनिक है इस प्रकार
से मैं, नवपक्षीगणों को इस मामले में समि नकया जािा न्यायोनचि
पािी ह ाँ।"

20. Thus, from the order itself, it is
apparent that the learned Magistrate has not
postponed process as contemplated under
Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., as the University is
situated at Moradabad and all the other
accused persons are shown to be residents
of District-Moradabad, therefore, in this
case the accused are residing at a place
beyond the area in which the Court
exercised its jurisdiction. The impugned
order has been passed by the court situated
at Lucknow. It is worth considering that
there is no exception to Section 202(1)
Cr.P.C. and in view of the matter even in
the government complaint case, Section
202(1) Cr.P.C. is mandatory and it is
admitted that applicants are stationed at
Moradabad and seeing that the learned
Magistrate was required to follow the
mandatory provisions of Section 202(1)
Cr.P.C., which has been amended by vide
Amendment
Act,
2005,
making
it
mandatory to postpone the issue of process
where the accused resides in an area
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
Magistrate
concerned.
2 All. Chandrabhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1269

21. With cumulative effect of the
above discussion and the analysis of the
Court here-in-above, the entire criminal
proceedings in connection with Complaint
Case No.31 of 2013, under Sections 43/44
of Water Pollution (Prevention and Control
) Act, 1974, pending in the court of Special
Judicial Magistrate, Pollution, Lucknow is,
hereby, quashed against the applicants.

21. The applications are, accordingly,
allowed.

22. A copy of this order be certified to
the lower court forthwith.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1269
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 42306 of 2023

Chandrabhan Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kaushlendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 173(2) & 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419 & 420 - -
the Court finds that - Application u/s 482 - for
quashing the charge-sheet, summoning order as
well entire criminal proceedings - offence of
Cheating arising from two sale deeds involving
the same parcel of land - Complaint - FIR -
investigation - Charge-sheet - cognizance order
- plea taken by the applicant that, neither the
applicant is the beneficiary of the transaction in
any manner nor he signed the instrument as
witness and his role was limited to witnessing
an agreement to sell - court finds that - (i)
though charge-sheet has been filed but the
same is yet to be considered by the trial court,
as concededly, the charges have not been
framed against the accused person, - (ii)
applicant's prior knowledge of the land's sale
and his role in identifying the vendor in the
second transaction distinguish his case from other
witnesses and justify the continuation of proceedings
- consequently, the Court declines to exercise its
inherent powers to quash the impugned proceedings,
holding that the allegations, if taken at face value, do
make out a prima facie case against the applicant -
application fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Para - 11, 12)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & ors. Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate & ors., reported in 1997 (4) R.C.R.
(Criminal), 761

2. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.,
reported in 1991 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal), 383.

3. Dharmatma Singh Vs Harminder Singh & ors.
reported as 2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Applicant being accused has
approached this Court through this application
under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure
seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated
13.01.2022, filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
as well as the cognizance/ summoning order
dated 20.4.2023 (both Annexure No.6) passed
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar
and the proceedings arising in Case Crime
No.0718 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420
I.P.C., Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant
Kabir Nagar.

2. The above F.I.R. (Annexre No.1)
was registered on the basis of complaint