# Ashoka v. N.L. Chandrashekhar

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 55
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-01-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 33247 of 2009
- **Bench:** Rajesh Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashoka-v-n-l-chandrashekhar-41512
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure- Section 482Quashing of charge sheet-offense under
section
274,275,419.420,464,468
IPC
read
with
section
3/7
essential
commodities
Act
and
Drugs
and
cosmetics Act. Section 18/27-Sufficient
material
collected
by
investigation
officer-prima facie offense made out-no
illegality or irregularity disclosed in
charge
sheet-cannot
be
interfereddirection
issued
to
consider
bail
application
keeping
in
view
of
Lal
Kamalendra Pratap Singh.

Held: Para 6

I have considered over the argument and
also perused the papers. In the case at
hand the material collected by the
investigating officer is sufficient to make
out prima facie offence against the
applicant and since there is sufficient
evidence against the accused applicant I
do not find any illegality or irregularity in
the filing of the Charge sheet or in the
order of the lower court by which the
applicant has been summoned.
Case law discussed:
(2009) 2 SCC(Criminal) 730, (2006) 3 SCC
(Cri) 188 are: (SCC p. 748, para 12), Criminal
Appeal No. 538 of 2009 Supreme Court dated
23.3.2009.

## Text

1 All] Arvind Kumar V. State of U.P. and another
55
11. In the present case also the
complaint has been filed by a public
servant hence the Magistrate was not
obliged to record the statement under
Section 200 or 202 Cr.P.C..

12. In view of the above the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
liable to be dismissed.

13. The application is dismissed.

14. However it is made clear that the
case shall be treated to be a complaint
case and the procedure prescribed for
hearing of complaint case shall be
applicable to the present case.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 33247 of
2009

Arvind Kumar

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & another ..Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ravindra Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure- Section 482Quashing of charge sheet-offense under
section
274,275,419.420,464,468
IPC
read
with
section
3/7
essential
commodities
Act
and
Drugs
and
cosmetics Act. Section 18/27-Sufficient
material
collected
by
investigation
officer-prima facie offense made out-no
illegality or irregularity disclosed in
charge
sheet-cannot
be
interfereddirection
issued
to
consider
bail
application
keeping
in
view
of
Lal
Kamalendra Pratap Singh.

Held: Para 6

I have considered over the argument and
also perused the papers. In the case at
hand the material collected by the
investigating officer is sufficient to make
out prima facie offence against the
applicant and since there is sufficient
evidence against the accused applicant I
do not find any illegality or irregularity in
the filing of the Charge sheet or in the
order of the lower court by which the
applicant has been summoned.
Case law discussed:
(2009) 2 SCC(Criminal) 730, (2006) 3 SCC
(Cri) 188 are: (SCC p. 748, para 12), Criminal
Appeal No. 538 of 2009 Supreme Court dated
23.3.2009.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra, J.)

1. The applicant has filed this
application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure to quash the
Chargesheet dated 12/9/09 in case crime
no.
03/09,
under
Sections
274,275,419.420,464,468 IPC and Section
3/7 Essential Commodities Act & Section
18/27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and
Section 21/22 NDPS Act pending as case
no.4890 of 2009 (State Vs. Ramesh
Chandra & Others) in the court of Addl.
CJM I, Jaunpur.

2. The learned counsel for the
applicant argued that the Charge sheet has
been submitted against the accused
applicant
without
collecting
proper
evidence and as such is liable to be
quashed.

3. It has further been argued that the
accused applicant was not arrested on the
spot and the licence of the drug is also not
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
in his name. He has falsely been
implicated in the case.

4. The learned A.G.A. on the other
hand argued that during investigation
sufficient evidence has been collected
against the accused applicant. He is the
son of the main accused Ramesh Chandra
Gupta. Ramesh Chandra Gupta had stated
at the time of recovery of the drugs that
the entire business is being run by Arvind
Kumar, the applicant in this case.

5. Hon'ble the Apex Court dealing
with the scope of exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.PC. has held as
under
in
K.
Ashoka
Vs.
N.L.
Chandrashekhar
(2009)
2
SCC
(Criminal) 730:

It is now a well-settled principle of
law that the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the
Code
may
quash
a
criminal
proceeding inter alia in the event the
allegations made in the complaint petition
even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety does not
disclose commission of a cognizable
offence. Some of the principles which
would be attracted for invoking the said
jurisdiction have been laid down in
Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.
(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188 are: (SCC p. 748,
para 12)

"(i) A complaint can be quashed
where the allegations made in the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety,
do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out the case alleged against the
accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has
to be examined as a whole, but without
examining the merits of the allegations.
Neither
a
detailed
inquiry
nor
a
meticulous analysis of the material nor an
assessment
of
the
reliability
or
genuineness of the allegations in the
complaint, is warranted while examining
prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed
where it is a clear abuse of the process of
the
court,
as
when
the
criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated
with mala fides/malice for wreaking
vengeance or to cause harm, or where the
allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not,
however, be used to stifle or scuttle a
legitimate prosecution. The power should
be used sparingly and with abundant
caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to
verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients
of the offence alleged. If the necessary
factual foundation is laid in the complaint,
merely on the ground that a few
ingredients have not been stated in detail,
the proceedings should not be quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted
only where the complaint is so bereft of
even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make
out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely
a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart
from furnishing a cause of action for
seeking remedy in civil law, may also
involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceeding are
different from a criminal proceeding, the
mere fact that the complaint relates to a
commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is
available or has been availed, is not by
1 All] Smt. Arvind Kumar Yadav V. State of U.P. and others
57
itself a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a
criminal offence or not?

6. I have considered over the
argument and also perused the papers. In
the case at hand the material collected by
the investigating officer is sufficient to
make out prima facie offence against the
applicant and since there is sufficient
evidence against the accused applicant I
do not find any illegality or irregularity in
the filing of the Charge sheet or in the
order of the lower court by which the
applicant has been summoned.

7. The application is therefore,
dismissed.

8. However, the learned lower court
is directed that after the applicant
surrenders in the court within three weeks
from today his bail application shall be
disposed of in the light of the judgment
passed by 7 judges Bench of this court in
Amarawati and another Vs. State of
U.P., 2005 Cr. L.J. 755 as approved by
the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. in
criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009
Supreme Court dated 23.3.2009.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ABHINAVA UPADHYA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42482 of 2009

Smt. Arvind Kumari Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Anwar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Indian Stamp Act- Section 43- A(3)-
Charging of Stamp duty-plot in question
recorded as agricultural land-according
to
circle
rate
stamp
duty
paidsubsequent
change
of
user
and
potentiality of land can be material
under
acquisition
proceeding
for
compensation purpose-but can not be
ground for levy of extra stamp duty or
imposing penalty.

Held: Para-8

It is true that the market value of a land
is
the
only
relevant
factor
for
determination of payment of stamp duty
under the Act and for that it is the
bounded
duty
of
the
Collector
to
determine it not merely on the basis of
the circle rate or its entry in the revenue
records, but on the same basis as is
required for the purpose of payment of
compensation under the land acquisition
proceedings.
Case law discussed:-
2005(98) RD, 511.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Anwar, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel.

2. Present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the
orders passed under section 47-A (3) and
56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act as
applicable to the State of U.P.

3. The petitioner had purchased a
piece of land being Arazi Khasra No.220
Khata No.126 measuring 0.40 Acre. Sale
deed was executed and registered in