# Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 153
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-24
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 11952 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brij-bhushan-sharan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54523
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (Old Section 482 Cr.P.C.) -
Section 528 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 251, 252, 254
& 31 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
188
-
Withdrawal
of
Prosecution
&
Cognizance - Disobedience to order duly
promulgated by public servant , Section
341 - Punishment for wrongful restraint -
Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are
mandatory
and
non-compliance
of it
would vitiate the prosecution and other
consequential orders - Cognizance of an
offence under Section 188 I.P.C. without a
complaint by a competent public servant
is void ab initio and vitiates the entire
proceeding including dependent offences
like Section 341 I.P.C. - Plea of guilty must
be made before the trial court under
Section 251 Cr.P.C., not before the High
Court, and must be clear, unambiguous,
and unqualified. (Para -23,24)

F.I.R. lodged under Sections 341 and 188 IPC -
Charge-sheet filed without complaint by public
servant under Section 195 Cr.P.C. - application
under Section 321 Cr.P.C. filed by Public
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prosecutor to withdraw prosecution - trial court
rejected the application on the ground that the
applicant had already pleaded guilty before the
High Court - prosecution under Section 341
I.P.C. could not be withdrawn. (Para - 3, 5, 1415)

HELD: - Since the charge-sheet relating to
Section 188 I.P.C. had already been quashed
and the Public Prosecutor had
filed
an
application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for
withdrawal of prosecution in respect of the
remaining Section 341 I.P.C., the Court,
invoking its power under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
(erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C.), held that there
was no need to remand the matter to the trial
court and accordingly treated the prosecution
under Section 341 I.P.C. as withdrawn and the
withdrawal application as allowed. (Para - 27)

Application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
153
(Supra), lays down the law correctly on the
issue
of
maintainability
of
an
application/petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings
under Section 12 of the D.V.Act at the
stage of issuance of notice or it is the
judgment in Smt. Suman Mishra's case
(supra) lays down the law correctly?

V. Whether a notice issued by the
Protection
Officer
for
conducting
a
preliminary enquiry pursuant to a direction
by the Magistrate under Section 12 of the
D.V. Act, 2005 is amenable to section 528
BNSS (erstwhile section 482 Cr.P.C) or
other proceedings like Article 226 or 227 of
the Constitution of India?.

VI. Whether a Co-ordinate Bench
of a High Court can frame an issue without
considering the factum of another case
rendered by another Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court and hold a Judgment per
incurium of another Co-ordinate Bench of
equal strength, without first expressing its
own view and then referring both the
earlier Judgment and its own view, to a
larger
Bench,
for
reconciliation
and
restating the law for clarity, consistency
and certainty?; and

VII. Whether the principle of
stare decisis should be followed by a Coordinate Bench of equal strength and is to
be respected and binding subject to right of
the Bench of such co-equal quorum to take
a different view and refer the question to a
larger Bench ?.

(22) Let the matter be placed before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for requisite
orders.

(23) As noted above, since the matter
is
being
referred,
in
case
the
applicants/petitioners move an application
for adjournment of the case before the trial
Court, this Court hopes and trusts that it
shall be adjourned by the trial Court till
final outcome of the reference.
---------
(2025) 2 ILRA 153
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 11952 of 2024

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sushil Kumar Singh, Janardan Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (Old Section 482 Cr.P.C.) -
Section 528 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 251, 252, 254
& 31 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
188
-
Withdrawal
of
Prosecution
&
Cognizance - Disobedience to order duly
promulgated by public servant , Section
341 - Punishment for wrongful restraint -
Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are
mandatory
and
non-compliance
of it
would vitiate the prosecution and other
consequential orders - Cognizance of an
offence under Section 188 I.P.C. without a
complaint by a competent public servant
is void ab initio and vitiates the entire
proceeding including dependent offences
like Section 341 I.P.C. - Plea of guilty must
be made before the trial court under
Section 251 Cr.P.C., not before the High
Court, and must be clear, unambiguous,
and unqualified. (Para -23,24)

F.I.R. lodged under Sections 341 and 188 IPC -
Charge-sheet filed without complaint by public
servant under Section 195 Cr.P.C. - application
under Section 321 Cr.P.C. filed by Public
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prosecutor to withdraw prosecution - trial court
rejected the application on the ground that the
applicant had already pleaded guilty before the
High Court - prosecution under Section 341
I.P.C. could not be withdrawn. (Para - 3, 5, 1415)

HELD: - Since the charge-sheet relating to
Section 188 I.P.C. had already been quashed
and the Public Prosecutor had
filed
an
application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for
withdrawal of prosecution in respect of the
remaining Section 341 I.P.C., the Court,
invoking its power under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
(erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C.), held that there
was no need to remand the matter to the trial
court and accordingly treated the prosecution
under Section 341 I.P.C. as withdrawn and the
withdrawal application as allowed. (Para - 27)

Application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Israr Ahmad Vs St. of U.P. & anr., Application
(U/S 482 Cr.P.C.) No.12525 of 2023

2. D.K. Rajendran & ors.etc. etc. Vs St. of T.N.,
AIR 2010 SC 3718

3. St. of Maha. Vs Sukhdev Singh & anr.,
(1992) 3 SCC 700

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh (S.K.
Singh), learned counsel assisted by Sri
Janardan Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the
State.

2.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant has filed Supplementary affidavit,
today in the Court, the same is taken on
record.

3.
By
means
of
this
application/petition filed under Section 528
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Old U/S
482 Cr.P.C.), the applicant has prayed for
the following relief:-

 "For the facts, reasons and
circumstances, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 31.07.2024, passed
by the learned Additional Civil Judge,
Magistrate Court Room No.1, (Special
Court MP/ MLA), Gonda in Crime No.348
of 2014, under Section 341 I.P.C., Police
Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Gonda and
further be pleased to allow the applicant
for withdrawal of prosecution dated
03.11.2020, under Section 321 Cr.P.C.,
moved by the State of U.P. through
Additional DGC (Crl.), Gonda in the
interest of justice."

4. This is the second application on
the same prayer as the first application was
dismissed being withdrawn vide order
dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure No.1) passed
in Application (U/S 482 Cr.P.C.) No.8632
of 2024; Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh vs.
State of U.P. & another, giving liberty to
the applicant to file a fresh application.
Pursuant
to
that
order,
the
present
application has been filed.

5.
Before
adverting
to
the
contentions of learned counsel for the
applicant, I find it appropriate that the order
dated 20.08.2022 passed by this Court in
Application (U/S 482 Cr.P.C.) No.3167 of
2022; Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh vs. State
of U.P. and another, be reproduced here-inbelow inasmuch as the purported genesis of
the impugned order dated 31.07.2024
passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1/ Special
Magistrate MP/MLA, Gonda is based on
the aforesaid order dated 22.08.2022
2 All. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
155
(supra). The order dated 22.08.2022 reads
as under:-

 "1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Present petition under section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
quashing of the Chargesheet no. 77/2014
dated 30-04-2014 submitted by the police
against the petitioner for the offences under
sections 341, 188 I.P.C. relating to Case
Crime No. 348 of 2014, Police SatationKotwali Nagar, district-Gonda as well as
summoning order dated 22-01-2018 passed
in Case No. 120 of 2018, State Versus Brij
Bhushan
Singh
including
further
proceedings pending before Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,Gonda.

3. Sri Janardan Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that
under section 195 Cr.P.C., there is a bar
for taking cognizance for the offfence under
section 188 I.P.C. except on a complaint
made by public servant. He has further
submitted that neither any F.I.R. could
have been registered for the offence under
section 188 I.P.C. nor any chargesheet
could have been filed.

4. It has further been submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that order of taking cognizance and
initiating further proceedings are against
the express provisions of section 195
Cr.P.C., therefore, they are void abinitio.

5. It has further been submitted
that lodging of the F.I.R. and filing of the
chargesheet and taking cognizance on the
said charghesset are wholly illegal and
against the bar created under section 195
Cr.P.C.

6. Sri Rao Narendra Singh,
learned A.G.A. does not dispute the fact
that there is a bar created under section
195 Cr.P.C.

7. Considering the aforesaid
position and taking into consideration the
provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., this
court is of the view that no cognizance
could have been taken on the chargesheet
submitted by the Investing Agency in F.I.R.
under section 188 I.P.C. Thus, it is held
that the impugned proceedings for offence
under section 188 I.P.C. are void ab-initio
inasmuch as they are against the provisions
of section 195 Cr.P.C.

8. In view thereof, the present
petition is partly allowed.
 9. The Chargesheet no. 77/2014
dated 30-04-2014 submitted by the police
against the petitioner for the offences under
sections 341, 188 I.P.C. relating to Case
Crime No. 348 of 2014, Police SatationKotwali Nagar, district-Gonda as well as
summoning order dated 22-01-2018 passed
in Case No. 120 of 2018, State Versus Brij
Bhushan Singh for offence under section
188 I.P.C.including further proceedings
pending before Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-I,Gonda, so far offence under
section 188 I.P.C. are hereby quashed.

10. So far as offence under
section 341 I.P.C. is concerned, it is also
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the petitioner does not want to contest the
proceedings for offence under section 341
I.P.C. and he will appear before the trial
court within ten days from today and plead
guilty before the trial court and will deposit
the fine as may be awarded by the learned
trial court in accordance with law.

11. If the petitioner surrenders
before the trial court and plead guilty, the
trial court may fine him appropriately for
offence under section 341 I.P.C. instead of
imprisonment and close the proceedings for
offence under section 341 I.P.C."

6. Sri S.K. Singh, learned counsel
for the applicant has submitted that in the
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
earlier petition filed in the year 2022 the
present applicant had assailed the Chargesheet No.77 of 2014 filed against the
present applicant under Section 341/188
I.P.C. relating to Case Crime No.348 of
2014. The aforesaid application was partly
allowed by this Court quashing the chargesheet for Section 188 I.P.C. including the
further proceedings pending before the
learned trial court relating to Section 188
I.P.C. but for Section 341 I.P.C. this Court
provided liberty to the applicant to appear
before the learned trial court within a
period of ten days pleading guilty by
depositing the fine as may be awarded by
the
learned
trial
court,
strictly
in
accordance with law.

7. Sri S.K. Singh has submitted
with vehemence that the trial of Section
341 I.P.C. would be a summary trial for
the reason that the maximum punishment
under that section is one month or fine to
the extent of five hundred rupees or with
both, which has been indicated under
Chapter-XXI Cr.P.C., 1973. Section 262
Cr.P.C.
provides
the
procedure
for
summary trial, which reads as under:-

"(1) In trial under this Chapter,
the procedure specified in this Code for the
trial of summons-case shall be followed
except as hereinafter mentioned.

(2) No sentence of imprisonment
for a term exceeding three months shall be
passed in the case of any conviction under
this Chapter."

8. In the light of the aforesaid
prevision of law the trial in the present case
would be conducted in a manner the trial of
summons cases are conducted by the
Magistrate which has been indicated under
Chapter-XX.
Section
251
Cr.P.C.
provides substance of accusation to be
stated, which reads as under:-

"When in a summons-case the
accused appears or is brought before the
Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of
which he is accused shall be stated to him,
and he shall be asked whether he pleads
guilty or has any defence to make, but it
shall not be necessary to frame a formal
charge."

9. Sri S.K. Singh has stated that the
law is clear on the point that when in a
summon case the accused appears before
the Magistrate, he shall be asked whether
he pleads guilty or has any defence to
make, but it shall not be necessary to frame
a formal charge.

10. Sri S.K. Singh has further
stated that pursuant to the order of this
Court the applicant will have to take
recourse as has been defined under the
Code and as per Section 251 Cr.P.C.. The
applicant has got an opportunity either to
plead guilty or to place his defence.
Pursuant to the order of this Court, it was
not incumbent upon the applicant to plead
guilty in any circumstances but if he has
got defence not to plead guilty he may do
so.

11. Therefore, Section 252 Cr.P.C.
is very clear on the next steps which says
that if the accused pleads guilty, the
Magistrate shall record the plea as nearly as
possible in the words used by the accused
and may, in his discretion convict him
thereon.

12. Notably, the Magistrate is
empowered under Section 254 Cr.P.C. not
to convict the accused under Section 352 or
353 of the Code and may hear the
2 All. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
157
prosecution taking such evidence which are
necessary to adjudicate the case on merits.

13. In view of the above, Sri S.K.
Singh has stated that the liberty being given
by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2022 to
appear before the learned trial court and plead
guilty would mean that he would take legal
recourse as has been mandated under Section
251 of the Code. He may not plead guilty if
he has got material to that effect.

14. The Assistant D.G.C. (Crl.),
Gonda has filed an application dated
03.11.2020 under Section 321 of the Code
withdrawing the prosecution against the
present applicant relating to Sections 188 &
341 I.P.C.. Not only the above, the present
applicant has also filed an application
under Section 321 of the Code on affidavit
on 03/4.04.2023 (Annexure No.11). The
learned trial court rejected the aforesaid
application of the Public Prosecutor vide
impugned order dated 31.07.2024 mainly
on the ground that the present applicant
appears to have pleaded his guilty before
the High Court, therefore, the prosecution
may not be withdrawn so far as Section 341
I.P.C. is concerned.

15. Sri S.K. Singh has stated that
the learned trial court has erred in
observing that the present applicant has
pleaded guilty before the High Court so far
as Section 341 I.P.C. is concerned
inasmuch as the only forum to plead guilty
is the learned trial court where the specific
provision for doing such exercise has been
indicated under Section 251 of the Code
which clearly mandates that the applicant
may either plead guilty or may not plead
guilty if he has got material to that effect.
Therefore, such observation of the learned
trial court in the impugned order dated
31.07.2024 is perverse.
16. Sri S.K. Singh has drawn
attention of this Court towards Annexure
No.SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit,
which is the complete order-sheet with
effect from 22.01.2018 to 03.10.2024,
which makes it crystal clear that till date
the charge has not been framed against the
present applicant.

17. Sri S.K. Singh has stated at this
stage that in a summary trials or trials of
summon cases framing of charge is not
necessary but if the accused applicant is
having material not to plead guilty, he may
do so under the law. The applicant has
filed an application dated 12.12.2024
before the learned trial court (Annexure
No.13) i.e. application for retraction of the
statement dated 22.08.2022, to plead guilty
before the learned trial court. In such
application, he did not plead guilty.
Therefore, Sri Singh has stated that if part
of the charge-sheet bearing No.77 of 2014
(supra), so far as it relates to Section 188
I.P.C. is concerned, has been set aside vide
order
dated
22.08.2022
(supra),
the
remaining part thereof relating to Section
341 I.P.C. may also be set aside as the
present applicant does not plead guilty.
Not only the above, the Public Prosecutor
after
going
through
the
fact
and
circumstances and the material available on
record had filed an application under
Section 321 of the Code to withdraw the
prosecution should have been allowed and
the prosecution pursuant to the Chargesheet No.77 of 2014 should have been
withdrawn.

18. Per contra, Sri Ran Vijay
Singh, learned Additional Government
Advocate
has
opposed
the
aforesaid
contensions of Sri S.K. Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant by submitting that
once the applicant had not prayed in his
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prayer in respect of Section 341 I.P.C.
before this Court and sought liberty to
plead guilty before the learned trial court,
he should have pleaded guilty by filing an
appropriate application and on the same
prayer the second application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable.

19. On being asked the learned
Additional Government Advocate as to
whether the applicant is debarred to take
legal recourse under Section 251 of the
Code in the garb of his undertaking and as
to whether his aforesaid undertaking would
be sacrosanct debarring him to avail the
legal recourse as has been indicated under
Section
251
of
the
Code,
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
has
submitted
that
since
there
is
legal
prescription to that effect under Section
251 of the Code so the applicant may take
that legal recourse in the light of his
undertaking being given before this Court.

20. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record, notably, the F.I.R.
bearing No.348 of 2014 was lodged under
Sections 341 & 188 I.P.C. wherein the
charge-sheet bearing No.77 of 2014 has
been filed. Section 195 Cr.P.C. clearly
mandates that no cognizance could have
been taken on the charge-sheet submitted
by the Investigating Agency in the F.I.R.
under Section 188 I.P.C. and if in the same
F.I.R. or the charge-sheet any other minor
section has been indicated, which is depend
upon Section 188 I.P.C., the cognizance of
that charge-sheet would be nullity in the
eyes of law.

21. Notably, Section 188 I.P.C.
defines
disobedience
to
order
duly
promulgated by the public servant and
Section 341 I.P.C. defines punishment for
wrongful restraint. Section 339 I.P.C.
defines wrongful restraint. In the present
case, the alleged offence of wrongful
restraint is a part and partial of Section 188
I.P.C. as it is not possible to split up and
hold the prosecution of the accused for
offence under Section 341 I.P.C. inasmuch
as the genesis of Section 341 I.P.C.
depends upon Section 188 I.P.C.

22. I had occasion to decide one case
i.e. APPLICATION (U/S 482 Cr.P.C.)
No.12525 of 2023; Israr Ahmad vs. State
of U.P. and another, wherein the finer
aspects of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has been
considered in the light of the decisions of
Apex Court as well as of other High Court,
paras-8, 11 and 12 would be apt to
reproduce here-in-below, as under:-
 "8. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also drawn attention of this
Court towards judgment of Apex Court
rendered in the case of D.K. Rajendran
and Ors. etc. etc. Vs. State of T.N.,
reported in AIR 2010 SC 3718, referring
Para 25 which reads as under:
 "25. Thus, in view of the above,
the law can be summarized to the effect
that there must be a complaint by the pubic
servant whose lawful order has not been
complied with. The complaint must be in
writing. The provisions of Section 195
Cr.PC are mandatory. Non-compliance of
it would vitiate the prosecution and all
other consequential orders. The Court
cannot assume the cognizance of the case
without such complaint. In the absence of
such a complaint, the trial and conviction
will be void ab initio being without
jurisdiction."
(Emphasis supplied)

11. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties, having perused the material
available on record and having regard the
decisions of Apex Court and various High
2 All. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
159
Courts, I am also of the considered opinion
that no Court can take cognizance of any
offence indicated in the chargesheet under
Section 188 of IPC in absence of written
complaint by the officer authorized for that
purpose in view of the specific bar of
Section 195 Cr.P.C. The provisions of
Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and
non-compliance of it would vitiate the
prosecution
and
other
consequential
orders.

12. In the present case, notably,
the complaint has not been filed by the
officer who has issued proclamation under
Section 144 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the trial
court could have not taken cognizance of
the chargesheet indicating the offence
under Section 188 IPC. Besides other
offences i.e. Section 143 IPC: Punishment
of unlawful assembly and Section 342:
Punishment for wrongful confinement since
form part of the same transaction of the
offence contemplated under Section 195(1)
of Cr.P.C., so it is not possible to split up
and hold that prosecution of the accused
for the other offences, inasmuch as the
genesis of other offences depends under
Section 188 IPC. To me, had it not been
any proclamation under Section 144
Cr.P.C. there would have been no offence
of the petitioner under Section 188 IPC.
Further, the offence of unlawful assembly is
also part and parcel of Section 188 IPC.
On account of the promulgation order, the
offence of wrongful confinement in the
present case is said to have been committed
by the petitioner alongwith so many
persons
who
have
gathered
when
promulgation order was in operation and
due to that some persons of public and
vehicles thereof stucked in jam."

23. In the present case, the
cognizance of Section 188 I.P.C., pursuant
to the Charge-Sheet No.77 of 2014, was
barred under Section 195 of the Code so
that part of the charge-sheet has already
been set aside by this Court vide order
dated 22.08.2022, hence, the remaining part
of the same charge-sheet is also liable to be
set aside as the allegations relating to
Section 341 I.P.C. is dependent upon the
allegation relating to Section 188 I.P.C.

24. When the present applicant did
not plead guilty, which can be done by him
under Section 251 of the Code so the
learned trial court may not observe that
since the applicant has not pressed his that
prayer before the High Court seeking
liberty to appear before the learned trial
court to plead guilty and it may not be
treated as if he has pleaded guilty. Unless
and until the accused applicant pleads
guilty before the learned trial court it may
not be treated as if he has pleaded guilty.
Therefore, the findings of the learned trial
court are perverse to that effect.

25. The Apex Court in the case in
re: State of Maharashtra vs. Sukhdev
Singh and another reported in (1992) 3
SCC 700 has held the same in that case,
though sections are relating to the sessions
trial but law on the point of plead guilty
may be applicable in the present case. The
relevant extract of the observations of the
Apex Court has been made in para-52,
which reads as under:-

"52....The plea of the accused
must, therefore, be clear, unambiguous and
unqualified and the Court must be satisfied
that he has understood the nature of the
allegations made against him and admits
them. The Court must act with caution and
circumspection before accepting and acting
on the plea of guilt. Once these
requirements are satisfied the law permits
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Judge trying the case to record a
conviction based on the plea of guilt. If,
however, the accused does not plead guilty
or the learned Judge does not act on his
plea he must fix a date for the examination
of the witnesses i.e. the trial of the case...."

26. In view of the facts and
circumstances, which have been considered
above, the case laws considered above, the
impugned
order
dated
31.07.2024
(Annexure No.2) passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.1/ Special Magistrate Court MP/MLA,
Gonda is hereby set aside/ quashed.

27. Since the part of the chargesheet relating to section 188 IPC has
already been set aside/ quashed by this
Court and the Public Prosecutor had
already filed an application withdrawing
the prosecution which would now be
relating to the subsequent part of the same
charge-sheet of section 341 IPC, therefore,
instead of relegating the matter to the
learned trial court to consider afresh, as I
do not find any fruitful purpose to remand
back the issue before the learned trial court,
but invoking power of this Court under
Section 528 B.N.S.S. (erstwhile under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.), I hereby hold that the
prosecution of Section 341 I.P.C., pursuant
to the Charge-Sheet No.77 of 2014, shall be
treated being withdrawn and the application
of the Public Prosecutor dated 03.11.2020
filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C., would be
treated to have been allowed.

28.
Accordingly,
the
instant
application is allowed.

29. No order as to costs.

Before parting with, I appreciate
the efforts and research made by Sri Piyush
Tripathi, Research Associate attached with
me as well as Ms. Ayushi Pandita, Law
Intern in finding out the relevant case laws
applicable in the present case.
---------
(2025) 2 ILRA 160
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 25418 of 2024

Piyush Gupta & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Kabeer Tiwari, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973- Section 482 - Food Safety &
Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 3(1)(n),
3(1)(o), 3(1)(y), 26, 26(2)(i), 26(4), 27,
42(4), 59(i) & 80 - Application U/s 482 -
challenging the summoning order as well as the
entire proceeding - Applicant is the employee of
applicant no. 2 who is running a restaurant -
dealing with selling different kind of prepared
food - inspection carried out by food safety
officer - sample of four sealed packets of
turmeric collected of Goldiee Masala Brand -
which were found having lead-chromate which
is harmful for human consumption - complaint
lodged - summon order issued U/s 59(1) of the
Act, 2006 - court finds that - it is not in dispute
that the applicant has purchased sealed packet
of turmeric powder from a licenced/registered
manufacturer and relied upon the information
given by the manufacturer of the turmeric
powder about the quality - if the turmeric
powder is found to be unsafe despite guarantee
of its quality - in that case, food business
operator dealing with business of selling the