# Ishrat v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 50
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1252 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ishrat-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52153
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 188 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 195 - The Representative
of People Act,1951 -Sections 123 & 125Summoning
order
impugned-allegations
of
offering illegal gratification to the voters in
Panchayat
Elections
and
flouting
COVID
guidelines-sec. 195(1) (a) (i) mandates that no
court shall take cognizance of an offence u/s
188 IPC except on a written complaint by the
concerned public servant-absence of such
complaint invalidates the cognizance of the
offence-prosecution has failed to provide any
evidence-which is crucial evidence u/s 123 of
the Representation Act no prior criminal recordimpugned order and proceeding quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

2. This petition seeks issuance of a
direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned F.I.R. registered
as Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 242 of 2024
under Sections 452, 354, 323, 506
I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Huzoorpur,
district Bahraich.

3. The punishment for the offences
mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. is less
than seven years.

4. In view of the order proposed to
be passed in this writ petition, issuance
of notice to the opposite party no. 4 is
dispensed with.

5. Learned Additional Government
Advocate looking to the gravity of
punishment being less than seven years
has stated that the provisions of Section
41-A Cr.P.C. shall be strictly followed
in terms of judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a
case reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273:
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and
another.

6. The present petition deserves to
be disposed of in terms of the statement
made by learned A.G.A.

7. Accordingly, this petition is
disposed of in view of the provisions of
Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the law as laid
down by Apex Court in the case of
Arnesh Kumar (supra).
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 50
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1252 of 2024

Ishrat ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Prashant Vikram Singh, Akshaya Pratap
Singh, Bhanu Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 188 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 195 - The Representative
of People Act,1951 -Sections 123 & 125Summoning
order
impugned-allegations
of
offering illegal gratification to the voters in
Panchayat
Elections
and
flouting
COVID
guidelines-sec. 195(1) (a) (i) mandates that no
court shall take cognizance of an offence u/s
188 IPC except on a written complaint by the
concerned public servant-absence of such
complaint invalidates the cognizance of the
offence-prosecution has failed to provide any
evidence-which is crucial evidence u/s 123 of
the Representation Act no prior criminal recordimpugned order and proceeding quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Fazil & ors Vs The State & ors. High Court of
Madras in the Case Crl. O. P. No. 21123 and Crl.
M. P. No. 8982 of 2020, Madras High Court

2. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl. (1)SCC
335 (Para 108 AIR Cri LJ)

3. M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. and another Vs Special
Judicial Magistrate and others: 1998 UPCrR 118

4. Lalankumar Singh & ors. Vs St. of Mah.
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1383
6 All. Ishrat Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
51
5. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1960 S.C. 866

6. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192

7. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr., (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)
283

8. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Mah., AIR 2021 SC 1918

9. S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, 2002
(44) ACC 168

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prashant Vikram Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant as well as
Ms. Ankita Tripahti, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. As per Office report dated 21.02.2024
notice has been served personally on opposite
party No.2, but till date neither anyone has put
in appearance nor any counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of the opposite party
No.2.

3. The present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the
impugned Summoning Order dated 05.1.2022
issued against the applicant by Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, District Unnao, and also to
quash entire proceedings of the Case No.
1834/2022, (State of U.P. Versus Chhote Lal
and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.
0124 of 2021, Under Section 188, 171-E, 269
and 270 of I.P.C. and Section 123 and 125 of
The Representation of People Act,1951
(herein after referred to as "Act,1951),
registered at Police Station Safipur, District
Unnao, pending before Learned Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Safipur, District Unnao.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the informant/opposite party
no. 02, Ram Awtar has lodged an F.I.R.
dated 25.04.2021 bearing Case Crime No.
0124 of 2021, Under Section 188, 171-E,
269 and 270 of I.P.C. and Section 123 and
125 of the Act 1951, at Police Station
Safipur, District Unnao,
against
the
applicant and six other named and 15
unknown persons alleging therein that the
applicant along with other six named coaccused and 15 other unknown persons
were offering illegal gratification to the
Voters in Panchayat Elections and one coaccused namely Sumanlata w/o Chhote
Lal was distributing Saree to the Voters
and they all were collectively and.
deliberately
flouting
the
Covid-19
guidelines.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that as per version of the
F.I.R dated 25.04.2021 the applicant was
distributing sarees to the voters through
co-accused namely Sumanlata w/o Chhote
Lal whereas there was no such mention of
the bribery given by the applicant or by
his agent or by any other person with the
consent of the applicant, which in itself is
the most essential ingredient to make out
an offence under Section 123 of the
Act,1951.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that Section 125 of the
Act,1951 is also levelled against the
applicant, which talks about Promoting
enmity between classes in connection with
election. But, by bare reading of the
contents of the F.I.R. the offence of
Section 125 of the Act does not make out
against the applicant.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the statement of the
informant and only one witness namely
Gokaran Singh, Head Constable was also
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C., in
which they repeated the version of the
F.I.R..

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the the allegations
made by the informant in the F.I.R. are
frivolous, concocted and are based on
absolutely false statements with a malicious
intention to harass the applicant who is a
reputed member of the society and has no
past criminal record and are not associated
with any such activities by far.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that it is pertinent to
mention here that on 03.02.2021, the
Secretary (Home), Government of India,
New Delhi has issued a letter no. 403/2020- DM-I(A) to the Chief Secretaries
of all the States, in which certain directions
were issued regarding withdrawal/review
of criminal cases resulting from alleged
violation of standard COVID-19 protocols
on merits.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that Hon'ble High Court
sitting at Allahabad passed several orders
in CRLP No. 7787 of 2021 (Vinay Kumar
and Others Vs State of U. P. and 2 Others)
for the compliance of the letter dt.
03.02.2021
issued
by
the
Secretary
(Home), Government of India.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that it can be asserted here
that the cognizance taken by the learned
Court is based upon, concocted facts and
no offence under Section 188, 171-E, 269
and 270 of I.P.C. and Section 123 and 125
of the Act, 1951 is made out against the
applicant and the summoning order dated
05.01.2022 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Unnao is based upon the F.I.R.
and statements of the informant and
witness without taking into consideration
the material evidences available on record
and without any application of its judicial
mind upon the circumstances of this case is
liable to be quashed.

12. Learned AGA submits that the
FIR
was
lodged based
on
credible
information received by the informant
about illegal activities conducted by the
applicant
and
co-accused
during
the
Panchayat Elections and allegations of
offering illegal gratification to voters and
violating
COVID-19
guidelines
are
supported by witness statements and
material evidence collected during the
investigation.

Learned AGA further submits
that the charges under Sections 188, 171-E,
269, and 270 of IPC, and Sections 123 and
125 of the Act, 1951, are applicable based
on the actions and intentions of the accused
as stated in the FIR and supported by
evidence.
Section
125
of
the
Act,
concerning promoting enmity, is relevant
given the nature of activities and their
impact on social harmony during the
election period.

The summoning order was issued
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao,
following due procedure and based on the
investigation's findings.

The FIR includes specifics about
the distribution of sarees to voters,
indicating bribery practices as defined
under Section 123 of the Representation of
People's Act, 1951.

13. After considering the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State,
6 All. Ishrat Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
53
this Court finds that the allegations brought
against the applicant under Section 188,
171-E, 269, and 270 of the IPC, as well as
Sections 123 and 125 of the Representation
of People's Act, 1951, appear to be baseless
and malicious. The FIR lodged by the
informant, Ram Awtar, is riddled with
inconsistencies and lacks the essential
ingredients necessary to constitute the
offenses alleged.

It is well-established that under
Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., no court shall
take cognizance of an offense under
Sections 172 to 188 IPC except on the
complaint in writing by the public servant
concerned or some other public servant to
whom he is administratively subordinate.
The absence of such a complaint in this
case renders the proceedings procedurally
flawed.

14. Detailed discussion of Relevant
Sections with reference to this case are as
under:

Section
123
in
The
Representation of the People Act, 1951

123. Corrupt practices.-

The following shall be deemed to
be corrupt practices for the purposes of this
Act:-

(1) "Bribery", that is to say-

(A) any gift, offer or promise by a
candidate or his agent or by any other
person with the consent of a candidate or
his election agent of any gratification, to
any person whomsoever, with the object,
directly or indirectly of inducing-

(a) a person to stand or not to
stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw
from being a candidate at an election, or

(b) an elector to vote or refrain
from voting at an election, or as a reward
to-

(i) a person for having so stood
or not stood, or for having withdrawn or
not having withdrawn his candidature; or

(ii) an elector for having voted or
refrained from voting;

(B) the receipt of, or agreement
to receive, any gratification, whether as a
motive or a reward-

(a) by a person for standing or
not standing as, or for withdrawing or not
withdrawing from being, a candidate; or

(b) by any person whomsoever for
himself or any other person for voting or
refraining from voting, or inducing or
attempting to induce any elector to vote or
refrain from voting, or any candidate to
withdraw
or
not
to
withdraw
his
candidature.

Explanation.-

For the purposes of this clause
the term "gratification" is not restricted to
pecuniary gratifications or gratifications
estimable in money and it includes all
forms of entertainment and all forms of
employment for reward but it does not
include the payment of any expenses bona
fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any
election and duly entered in the account of
election expenses referred to in section 78."
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In the instant case, the applicant
argues that the allegations do not meet the
essential ingredients of bribery as defined
under Section 123 of the Act. The FIR
alleges that the applicant was involved in
distributing sarees to voters, but it does not
specify any direct act of bribery by the
applicant or his agent with his consent. The
lack of detailed allegations fails to
substantiate a prima facie case under
Section 123.

Section 125. Promoting enmity
between classes in connection with
election -

"Any person who in connection
with an election under this Act promotes or
attempts to promote on grounds of religion,
race, caste, community or language, feelings
of enmity or hatred, between different classes
of the citizens of India shall he punishable,
with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with
both."

Similarly, the allegations do not
support the offense under Section 125 of the
Act, which deals with promoting enmity
between classes in connection with elections.

The FIR does not contain any
specific
assertions
that
the
applicant
attempted to promote enmity based on
religion, race, caste, community, or language.

Sections 269 and 270 IPC: These
sections pertain to negligent acts likely to
spread infection of disease dangerous to life.

The
FIR's
allegations
about
COVID-19 guideline violations do not
provide sufficient specifics to sustain
charges under these sections.

Section 188 I.P.C. r/w Section
195 Cr.P.C

Section
188
I.P.C.
:
(Disobedience to Order Duly Promulgated
by Public Servant): Disobedience to an
order lawfully promulgated by a public
servant.

"195 Prosecution for contempt of
lawful authority of public servants, for
offences against public justice and for
offences relating to documents given in
evidence
(1)
No
Courts
shall
take
cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable
under section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of
the Indian penal code(45 of 1860), or

(ii) Of any abetment of, attempt
to commit such offence, or

iii) of any criminal conspiracy to
commit, such offence, except on ( the
complaint in writing of the public servant
concerned or of some other public servant
to whom he is administratively subordinate.

In FAZIL AND ORS. VS. THE
STATE AND OTHERS HIGH COURT
OF MADRAS in the Case Crl. O. P. No.
21123 and Crl. M. P. No. 8982 of 2020,
Madras High Court has deal the same
issue and observed that-

"Para-25.
In
view
of
the
discussion, the following guidelines are
issued insofar as an offence under section
188 of IPC, is concerned:

(a) A police offence cannot
register an FIR for any of offences falling
under section 172 to 188 of IPC.
6 All. Ishrat Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
55

(b) A Police officer by virtue of
the powers conferred under section 41 of
Cr.P.C. will have the authority to take
action under section 41 of Cr.P.C., when a
cognizable offence under section 188 IPC
is committed in his presence or where such
action is required, to prevent such person
from committing an offence under section
188 of IPC.

(c) The role of the police office will
be confined only to the preventive action as
stipulated under section 41 of Cr.P.C. and
immediately thereafter, he has to inform about
the same to the public servant concerned /
authorized, to enable such public servant to
give a complaint in writing before the
jurisdictional Magistrate, who shall take
cognizance of such complaint on being prima
facie satisfied with the requirements of section
188 of IPC. (d) In order to attract the
provisions of section 188 of IPC, the written
complaint of the public servant concerned
should reflect the following ingredients namely;

(i) That there must be an order
promulgated by the public servant:

(ii) That such public servant is
lawfully empowered to promulgate it;

(iii)
That
the
person
with
knowledge of such order and being
directed by such order to abstain from
doing certain act or to take certain order
with certain property in his possession and
under his management, has disobeyed, And

(iv)
That
such
disobedience
causes or tends to cause;

(a) Obstruction, annoyance or
risk of it to any person lawfully employed;
or

(b) Danger to human life, health
or safety; or

(c) A riot or affray.

(d) The promulgation issued
under section 30(2) of the police act, 1861,
must satisfy the test of reasonableness and
can only be in the nature of a regulatory
power and not a blanket power to trifle any
democratic dissent of the citizens by the
police.

(e) The promulgation through
which, the order is made known must be by
something done openly and in public and
private
information
will
not
b
e
promulgation. The order must be notified
or published by beat of drum or in a gazette
or published in a newspaper with a wide
circulation.

(f) No judicial Magistrate should
take cognizance of Final Report when it
reflects an offence under section 172 to 188
of IPC. An FIR or a Final Report will not
become void ab initio insofar as offences
other than section 172 to 188 of IPC and a
Final Report can be taken cognizance by
the Magistrate insofar as offences not
covered under section 195(1)(a)(i) of
Cr.P.C.

(g) The Director General of
Police, Chennai and Inspector General
of the various Zones are directed to
immediately formulate a process by
specifically empowering public servants
dealing with for an offence under
section 188 of IPC to ensure that there
is
no
delay
in
filling
a
written
complaint
by
the
public
servants
concerned under section 195 (1) (a) (i)
of Cr.P.C."
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

That the case of applicant is
squarely covered in point no. (1) of the
Paragraph No. 108 of STATE OF
HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL 1992
Suppl. (1)SCC 335 (Para 108 AIR Cri
LJ) which is as follows-

"In
the
backdrop
of
the
interpretation
of
the
various
relevant
provisions of the code under chapter XIV and
of the principles of law enunciated by this
court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under section 482
of the code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either
to prevent abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to la down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelized an inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulate and to give an exhaust list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in
the
first
information
report
or
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 a case against the accused-

(II) Where the allegations in the
First
Information
Report
and
other
materials if any accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence justifying
an investigation by police officers under
section 156(1) of the code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
section 155(2) of the code.

(III) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or Complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.

(IV) Where the allegation in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under section
155(2) of the code.

(V) Where the allegations made
in the FIR or Complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach
a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground
for
proceeding
against
the
accused.

(VI) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the code or the concerned
act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted)
to
the
institution
and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the
code or the concerned act providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party"

Section
195(1)(a)(i)
Cr.P.C.
mandates
that
no
court
shall
take
cognizance of an offence under section 188
IPC except on a written complaint by the
concerned public servant.

In this case, the absence of such a
complaint invalidates the cognizance of the
offence under this section. As mandated by
section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., a court cannot
take cognizance of an offence under section
188 IPC without a written complaint from
the concerned public servant.
6 All. Ishrat Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
57

15. In M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. and
another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate
and others: 1998 UPCrR 118, Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed:

"Summoning of an accused in a
criminal case, is a serous matter. Criminal
law can not be set into motion as a matter
of course. It is not that the complainant has
to bring only two witnesses to support his
allegations in the complaint to have the
criminal law set into motion. The order of
the Magistrate summoning the accused
must reflect that he has applied his mind to
the facts of the case and the law applicable
thereto. He has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence both oral and documentary in
support thereof and would that be sufficient
for the complainant to succeed in bringing
charge home to the accused. It is not that
the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the
time of recording of preliminary evidence
before summoning the accused. Magistrate
had to carefully scrutinize the evidence
brought on record and may even himself
put questions to the complainant and his
witnesses to elicit answers to find out the
truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise
and then examine if any offence is prima
facie committed by all or any of the
accused."

16. Further Hon'ble the Supreme
Court of India in the case of Lalankumar
Singh
and
Others
vs.
State
of
Maharashtra reported in 2022 SCC
Online SC 1383 has specifically held in
paragraph No.38 that the order of issuance
of process is not an empty formality. The
Magistrate is required to apply his mind as
to whether sufficient ground for proceeding
exists in the case or not. Paragraph No.38
of Lalankumar Singh and Others (supra) is
being quoted hereunder:-

"38. The order of issuance of
process is not an empty formality. The
Magistrate is required to apply his mind as
to whether sufficient ground for proceeding
exists in the case or not. The formation of
such an opinion is required to be stated in
the order itself. The order is liable to be set
aside if no reasons are given therein while
coming to the conclusion that there is a
prima facie case against the accused. No
doubt, that the order need not contain
detailed reasons. A reference in this respect
could be made to the judgment of this
Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, which
reads thus:

"51. On the other hand, Section
204 of the Code deals with the issue of
process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. This
section relates to commencement of a
criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate
taking cognizance of a case (it may be the
Magistrate receiving the complaint or to
whom it has been transferred under Section
192), upon a consideration of the materials
before him (i.e. the complaint, examination
of the complainant and his witnesses, if
present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks
that there is a prima facie case for
proceeding in respect of an offence, he
shall issue process against the accused.

52. A wide discretion has been
given as to grant or refusal of process
and it must be judicially exercised. A
person ought not to be dragged into court
merely because a complaint has been
filed. If a prima facie case has been made
out, the Magistrate ought to issue process
and it cannot be refused merely because
he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a
conviction.
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

53.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
ground
for
proceeding"
appearing in Section 204 are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
after due application of mind that there is
sufficient basis for proceeding against the
said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself.
The order is liable to be set aside if no
reason is given therein while coming to the
conclusion that there is prima facie case
against the accused, though the order need
not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the
order would be bad in law if the reason
given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

17. Further the Apex Court has also laid
down the guidelines where the criminal
proceedings could be interfered and quashed
in exercise of its power by the High Court in
the following cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs.
State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii)
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192,
(iii)
Zandu
Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and
another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and
(iv) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918.

18. In S.W. Palankattkar & others
Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it
has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that quashing of the criminal proceedings is
an exception than a rule. The inherent
powers of the High Court itself envisages
three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i)
to give effect an order under the Code, (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of the court
; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice. The power of High Court is very
wide
but
should be
exercised
very
cautiously to do real and substantial justice
for which the court alone exists.

19. In the instant case, the prosecution
has failed to to provide any evidence or
mention of bribery by the applicant or his
agent, which is a crucial element for an
offense under Section 123 of the Act and
the FIR does not contain any allegations
that fit the definition of promoting enmity
between classes on the grounds of religion,
race, caste, community, or language, which
is required for an offense under Section 125
of the Act.

The allegations appear to be
fabricated and aimed solely at harassing the
applicant, who has no prior criminal record
and is a reputed member of society. The
statements recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. by the informant and the witness do
not add any substantive evidence to support
the charges.

The letter dated 03.02.2021 from
the Secretary (Home), Government of
India, and the subsequent orders passed by
the Hon'ble Court in CRLP No. 7787 of
2021, emphasize the need to review and
withdraw criminal cases related to alleged
violations of COVID-19 protocols. This
directive was not considered by the
Learned Court while taking cognizance of
the matter.

20. Thus, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the
facts and circumstances, as narrated above,
summoning Order dated 05.1.2022 issued
against the applicant by Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, District Unnao, and the
entire proceedings of the Case No.
1834/2022, (State of U.P. Versus Chhote
Lal and Others) arising out of Case Crime
No. 0124 of 2021, Under Section 188, 171E, 269 and 270 of I.P.C. and Section 123
and 125 of The Representation of People
Act,1951 (herein after referred to as
6 All. Sagar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
59
"Act,1951), registered at Police Station
Safipur, District Unnao, pending before
Learned Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Safipur, District Unnao are against the
spirit and directions issued by the Hon'ble
Apex Court are liable to be quashed.

21. Accordingly, keeping in view the
discussions/observations and judgments of
Hon'ble the Apex Court referred above and the
facts and circumstances, summoning Order
dated 05.1.2022 issued against the applicant
by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Unnao, and entire proceedings of the Case No.
1834/2022, (State of U.P. Versus Chhote Lal
and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.
0124 of 2021, Under Section 188, 171-E, 269
and 270 of I.P.C. and Section 123 and 125 of
The Representation of People Act,1951
(herein after referred to as "Act,1951),
registered at Police Station Safipur, District
Unnao, pending before Learned Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Safipur, District Unnao
are hereby quashed.

22. For the reasons discussed above,
the
instant
application
filed
by
the
applicant-Ishrat under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is allowed.

23. Learned Senior Registrar of this
Court is directed to transmit a copy of this
order to the trial court concerned for its
necessary compliance.
---------
(2024) 6 ILRA 59
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4465 of 2024
Sagar Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Lal Bahadur Khan, Shashi Dhar Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Quashing of F.I.R. -
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - F.I.R.
u/s 3, 7 - Penalties u/s 7 may extend to
seven years - Criminal Procedure Code,
Section 41-A - The court, considering that
the gravity of the punishment was less
than seven years, directed that the
provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. be
strictly followed in accordance with the
judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of
Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bihar & anr., (2014) 8
SCC 273.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

2. This petition seeks issuance of a
direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned F.I.R. registered as
Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 72 of 2024 under
Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act,1955,
Police Station Mahigawan, district Lucknow.

3. The punishment for the offences
mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. is less
than seven years.