# Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Anr - **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 838 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-06-18 - **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-kumar-agarwal-v-state-of-u-p-and-anr-42620 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India-Art. 226- suspension of Principal of intermediate collegewhether during existence of first suspension order-can be second suspension even on fresh allegation?- held/a suspended employee can not be suspended-D.I.O.S to consider this ## Text 838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.06.2013. BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J. Criminal Misc. Application No.(U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) 20005 of 2013 Mahesh Kumar Agarwal ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nitin Kumar Agarwal Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482- Quashing of Criminal Proceeding-offence under section 272, 273 I.P.C.-on ground in view of food safety and standard Act 2006proceeding under IPC not amendable-In view of law laid down by the Court in case of Bankey Bihari Agrwal-entire proceeding pending before Session Judge quashed. Held: Para-7 Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Bankey Bihari Agarwal & another vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2013 (5) ADJ 201 in which the proceedings on this ground were quashed. Case Law discussed: W.P. No. 8255(M/B) of 2010; 2013(5) ADJ 201 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.) 1. Heard Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. By means of present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 253 of 2010 under Section 272 & 273 I.P.C., police station Naraura, District Bulandshahar pending before the Additional District and Session Judge, Bulandshahar as Session Trial No. 635 of 2011 (State vs. Mahesh) under Section 272 & 273 I.P.C. as well as the impugned order dated 16.3.2013 and 23.3.2013 passed in the aforesaid session trial. 3. The facts of the case are that the shop of the applicant was inspected by opposite party no. 2 on 31.10.2010 and had taken the sample of sweet (Besan Ka Laddu) and the same to the Public Analyst for its opinion. In the report of the Public Analyst, Khesari was found in the Sweet which is injurious to the health, hence the same was adulterated. Thereafter on the complaint of the opposite party no.2, an F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant on 29.12.2010. The investigation of the matter was done and after conclusion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the applicants under Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. The applicant has moved a discharge application annexed as Paper No. 17-A to the present application on 1.5.2012 which was rejected by the trial court on 16.3.2013. Subsequently, the applicant has moved another application annexed as Paper No. 27-B to the present application before the trial seeking adjournment on the ground that he want to file an application before this Hon'ble Court challenging the order dated 16.3.2013 which was also rejected by the trial court by order dated 23.3.2013. Both the orders are impugned herein. 4. The applicant has questioned these proceedings on the ground that in 2 All] Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. 839 view of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, no proceedings can be initiated under proceedings 272 and 273 of the I.P.C. The power of police has been excluded by the Act to initiate any investigation in the matter. His plea was rejected by the trial court. Under these circumstances, he has approached this Court. 5. The applicant has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8255 (MB) of 2010, M/s Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Limited and another. 6. I have perused the material on record as well as the aforesaid Judgment. Following directions have been passed by the Division Bench:- "In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned G.O. dated 11.5.2010 issued by the State Government contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. Consequently, the FIR dated 11.8.2010 registered as case crime no. 392 of 2010 under sections 272/273 IPC, PS Cantt. District Varanasi, FIR dated 11.8.2010 in Case Crime No. 144 of 2010 registered at PS Rohaniya, District Varanasi and the FIR registered as case crime no. 244 of 2010, PS Khuldabad, District Allahabad are also hereby quashed. The concerned Magistrates shall immediately pass necessary orders for forthwith release of all the petitioners, who are in jail." 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Bankey Bihari Agarwal & another vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2013 (5) ADJ 201 in which the proceedings on this ground were quashed. 8. In view of the directions given by this Court, the proceedings before the Sessions Court are liable to be quashed as the applicants case is squarely covered by the aforesaid Judgment. 9. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The impugned orders dated 16.3.2013 and 23.3.2013 as well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. 10. However, it will be open for the authorities concerned to proceed against the applicant under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 in accordance with law. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the present application. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24457 of 2013 Dr. Parasu Ram Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Shashi Nandan Sri Udayan Nandan Constitution of India-Art. 226- suspension of Principal of intermediate collegewhether during existence of first suspension order-can be second suspension even on fresh allegation?- held/a suspended employee can not be suspended-D.I.O.S to consider this