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

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 642
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-09
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 14125 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajkumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53429
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Essential Commodities Act,
1955 - Section 11 - there is hardly any
sanction of prosecution in pursuance to
section 11 of Essential Commodities Act
available-entire proceedings is conducted
by way of ignoring the strict provisions-
specifically defined under section 11 of
the
Act-not
permissible-
unjustified-
Proceedings quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
upon the opposite party no.2 was against
her will.

27. From the perusal of the statement of
opposite party no.2 recorded u/s 161 and 164
Cr.P.C., there is specific allegation of cruelty
and also the harassment against the husband for
demand of dowry, as well as committing
unnatural carnal sex upon his wife against her
wishes. Therefore, the contention of learned
counsel for the applicant that no offence u/s 498A
and 377 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, is made
out, is misconceived. As far as the other
contention of the learned counsel for the applicant
that opposite party no.2 was aware about the
earlier marriage of the applicant is concerned, the
same is not relevant for the present controversy
and also being disputed question of fact can be
decided during trial, but cannot be a ground to
quash the impugned proceeding.

28. So far as the submission of learned
counsel for the applicant that there is delay in
lodging the FIR is also misconceived because
from the perusal of FIR, as well as the
statements, it is clear that there was a
continuous harassment of opposite party no.2
on the part of the applicant. Therefore, the
judgement of Shivendra Pratap Singh
Thakur's case (supra) relied upon by learned
counsel for the applicant is not applicable in
the present case.

29. Another submission of learned
counsel for the applicant is that as the opposite
party no.2 has refused to conduct her medical
examination,
therefore,
the
impugned
proceeding deserves to be quashed is also
misconceived, as unnatural intercourse was
committed by the applicant with the opposite
party no.2 against her wishes, and after a few
days, an FIR was lodged. There is other
material in the case diary, which substantiates
the allegation of the opposite party no.2.
Therefore, even if medical examination of
opposite party no.2 was not conducted that
cannot be a ground to quash the impugned
proceeding.

30. The submission of learned counsel for
the applicant that the independent witness did not
support the version of opposite party no.2 as
mentioned in the FIR and there is no specific
demand of dowry in the statement of opposite
party no.2 recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and 164
Cr.P.C. is also misconceived because the
Apex Court in the case of Aluri Venkata
Ramana Vs. Aluri Thirupathi Rao and
Others, SLP (Criminal) No.9243 of 2024 has
observed that to attract the offence u/s 498A
IPC, specific demand of dowry is not
necessary, and cruelty committed by the
husband is itself sufficient to attract the
ingredients of Section-498A IPC. Even
otherwise from the perusal of the statements
of Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.,
offence mentioned in chargesheet are made
out. Therefore, judgement of State of
Himachal Pradesh's case (supra) is not
applicable in the present case.

31. In view of the above, this court is of
the view that no ground for quashing is made
out, therefore, present application is rejected.

32. However, the applicant is at liberty to
apply for bail before the court below.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 642
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 14125 of 2025

Rajkumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
5 All. Rajkumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
643
Counsel for the Applicant:
Jai Kishan, Vipin Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Civil Law - Essential Commodities Act,
1955 - Section 11 - there is hardly any
sanction of prosecution in pursuance to
section 11 of Essential Commodities Act
available-entire proceedings is conducted
by way of ignoring the strict provisions-
specifically defined under section 11 of
the
Act-not
permissible-
unjustified-
Proceedings quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.17455 of 2012
(Manoj Mehto Vs St. of U.P. & anr.)

2. Vasanti Dubey Vs St. of M.P., decided on 17th
January, 2012 in Criminal Appeal No.166 of
2012 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
No.1548 of 2011]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jai Kishan Rajpoot,
learned counsel for applicant and Sri Gyan
Prakash, learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Initiation of the matter has been
triggered by way of lodging F.I.R. at the
behest of opposite party no.2 on dated
12.08.2021 against applicant, who had been
fair price shop dealer specifying the
irregularity in distribution of essential
commodities;
after
completion
of
investigation,
concerned
Investigating
Officer,
vide
specific
order
dated
06.10.2022 issued by District Magistrate,
Kasganj, submitted final report on dated
17.12.2022
before
learned
court
of
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Kasganj in Case No.9794 of 2024 (State vs.
Rajkumar), whereupon learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj took
cognizance of offence under section
190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. on dated 16.11.2024,
which
had
been
challenged
through
Application under section 528 BNSS
No.9092 of 2025 with specific ground that
order dated 16.11.2024 was not sustainable
in the eye of law, since it is in complete
violation of section 11 of Essential
Commodities
Act,
1955,
since
no
approval/sanction was taken by order of, or
under the authority of District Magistrate or
such other officer as may be empowered by
the State Government by general or special
order and as such the cognizance and
summoning order passed against the
applicant
without
order
of
District
Magistrate is abuse of the process of law
since order passed under section 11 of
Essential Commodities Act was in favour
of the applicant.

3. On the basis of arguments so raised
by learned counsel for applicant and in the
light of judgement dated 05.03.2020 passed
by in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
No.17455 of 2012 (Manoj Mehto vs. State
of U.P. and Another), earlier Application
under section 528 BNSS No.9092 of 2025
has been allowed by way of quashing
summoning order dated 16.11.2024 passed
in Misc. Case No.01 of 2023 (Sunil Kumar
vs. Raj Kumar) arising out of Case Crime
No.440 of 2021, under sections 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, P.S.
Kasganj, District- Kasganj vide order dated
21.03.2025, but at the same time, liberty
was extended in favour of learned court
concerned for taking cognizance against the
applicant, if required as per law, in due
compliance of section 11 of Act of 1955;
the extract of determination along with
conclusion while passing order dated
21.03.2025 is reproduced herein below:-
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"6. Since, learned counsel for
applicant argued the matter on legal issues
as such the process to issue notice to
respondent no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.

7. Before proceeding, a ready
reference of Section 11 of E.C. Act (State
Amendment of U.P. 1955), is as under:-

"11. Cognizance of offences.?No
Court shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under this Act except on a
report in writing of the facts constituting
such offence made by a person who is a
public servant as defined in section 21 of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 1[or
any person aggrieved or any recognised
consumer association, whether such person
is a member of that association or not].
1[Explanation.?For the purposes of this
section and section 12AA, ?recognised
consumer association? means a voluntary
consumer association registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any
other law for the time being in force.] state
amendment Uttar Pradesh.? In section 11,
for the words ?by a person who is a public
servant as defined in section 21 of the
Indian Penal Code,? substitute the words
?by order of, or under authority from the
District Magistrate or such other officer as
may
be
empowered
by
the
State
Government by general or special order in
this behalf.? [Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 9 of
1974, sec. 7 (w.e.f. 24-4-1974).]"

8. Having regards to judgment
rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in case of Manoj Mehto (supra) and
from perusal of the records, it is crystal
clear that compliance of Section 11 of the
Act of 1955 has not been made in the
present case, since it is well established
that order of the District Magistrate or
authorization by him is essential for taking
cognizance, which is missing in the present
case. This vitiates cognizance taking in the
offence by Magistrate concerned. It is
under
abuse
of
process
of
law.
Accordingly, this application is to be
allowed.

9. The instant application is
hereby allowed. Impugned summoning
order dated 16.11.2024 passed in Misc.
Case no. 1 of 2023 (Sunil Kumar vs.
Rajkumar) (arising out of Case Crime no.
440 of 2021) under Section 3/7 of Essential
Commodities Act, Police Station Kasganj,
District Kasganj is hereby quashed.

10. The above mentioned order
will not preclude the learned court
concerned for taking cognizance against
applicant, if required, as per law, in due
compliance of Section 11 of the Act of
1955."

4.
After
passing
order
dated
21.03.2025
by
this
Court,
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Kasganj passed order dated 02.04.2025,
through which liberty has been invoked as
provided under para-10 of the judgement
dated 21.03.2025 and directed for further
investigation by way of assuming that the
liberty is given to take cognizance post
sanction, at the same time directed the
concerned Investigating Officer to seek
sanction
and
posted
the
matter
for
01.07.2025.

5. The instant application under
section 528 BNSS has been preferred for
challenging order dated 02.04.2025 passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kasganj in Case No.9794 of
2024 (State vs. Rajkumar) under sections
3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955,
P.S. Kasganj, District- Kasganj.
5 All. Rajkumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
645

6. Learned counsel for applicant
submitted that learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj was not
empowered to compel the concerned
Investigating Officer to seek sanction for
prosecution against the applicant, once
competent
authority,
i.e.,
District
Magistrate, Kasganj already showed his
satisfaction over the inquiry conducted by
the then Investigating Officer, through
which certain evidences has been put
forward, which directly indicates that no
further proceeding against the applicant is
required and as such final report prepared
by the concerned Investigating Officer has
been duly approved by District Magistrate,
Kasganj on dated 06.10.2022 under section
11 of Essential Commodities Act.

7. It is next submitted by learned
counsel for the applicant that learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Kasganj made patent illegality which is
apparent on face of record for two times;
once when the final report has been
submitted
with
proper
approval
of
competent
authority,
i.e.,
District
Magistrate, Kasganj, there was no occasion
available before learned court concerned to
proceed in pursuance to section 190(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. vide order dated 16.11.2024 and
thereafter
while
passing
order
dated
02.04.2025, an illegal direction was passed
for further investigation in pursuance to
section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

8. Learned counsel for applicant
further
submitted
that
learned
court
concerned by way of adopting provision
available under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
while passing order dated 16.11.2024,
which has already been quashed by this
Court again invoking provision under
section 173(8) Cr.P.C. while passing order
dated 02.04.2025, which impugned the
present application; in this case the specific
provision of section 11 of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 is becoming
redundant and prosecution which strictly
governs with the provision contained under
Essential Commodities Act since the
implication of applicant is under sections
3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955
has been illegally ignored.

9. For substantiating the arguments
raised by learned counsel for applicant, he
relied upon the judgement rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vasanti
Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
decided on 17th January, 2012 in
Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2012 [Arising
out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
No.1548 of 2011], the relevant extract of
judgement mentioned above under para- 16
is quoted herein below:-

"16. When the facts of the instant
matter is further tested on the anvil of the
aforesaid legal position, we find that the
Special Judge instead of following the
procedure enumerated in the Cr.P.C.
appeared to insist on rejecting the closure
report
given
by
the
Special
Police
Establishment, Lokayukta Office and in the
process consistently committed error of law
and jurisdiction not only once, but twice.
On the first occasion when the order of the
Special Judge was quashed and set aside
by the High Court granting liberty to the
Special Judge either to take cognizance
under Section 190(c) or order for further
investigation as he had committed an error
of jurisdiction by directing the police to
straightway
submit
the
charge-sheet
against the accused-petitioner, the Special
Judge did not consider it appropriate to
take cognizance but ordered for further
investigation by Lokayukta Police and
when the matter was reinvestigated by the
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Special
Police
Establishment
of
the
Lokayukta Office, the Special Judge in spite
of the finding of the investigating agency
holding that no further material to proceed
in the matter was found, refused to accept
the closure report and this time it further
realized that it could not proceed in the
matter as there was no sanction for
prosecution, which the Special Judge
obviously noticed since he was not in a
position to take cognizance directly under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act in absence of sanction
which was a statutory requirement. In spite
of this, he refused to accept closure report
but recorded a direction to obtain sanction
for prosecution of the appellant and
thereafter ordered for reinvestigation of the
complaint for the second time creating a
peculiar and anomalous situation which is
not in consonance with the provision of the
Code of Criminal Procedure enumerated
under the Chapter relating to conditions
requisite for initiation of proceedings."

10.
Per
contra,
learned
A.G.A.
although vehemently oppose the prayer as
made in the instant application and rebutted
the stand taken up by learned counsel for
applicant by way of submitting that learned
court concerned proceeded in the matter in
pursuance to judgement dated 21.03.2025
passed by this Court, wherein liberty has
been extended and the same has been
invoked by way of directing concerned
Investigating Officer for further investigate
the matter in pursuance to section 173(8)
Cr.P.C. and as such order impugned to the
instant application does not contain any
illegality and the same is in the strict
consonance with the procedure available
under Code of Criminal Procedure.

11. After hearing rival submissions
extended by learned counsel for the parties,
arguments raised by learned counsel for
applicant in respect of fresh order passed
by learned court concerned vide order
dated 02.04.2025, which impugned the
instant application, the same was uncalled
for, since there is hardly any liberty
extended by this Court while passing
judgement and order dated 21.03.2025 and
the same cannot be treated to deviate the
proceedings available under the Special Act
by way of taking recourse to the
proceedings
available
in
Criminal
Procedure Code, since the applicant has
been implicated in pursuance to allegation
wherein the penalty has been provided
under the Special Act and the specific
procedures are also defined therein, learned
court concerned by way of ignoring the
strict provisions, specifically defined under
section 11 of Essential Commodities Act, is
not permissible in the eye of law and seems
to be unjustified.

12. The arguments raised by learned
A.G.A. specifically in respect of invoking
liberty granted by this Court itself is not
tenable in the eye of law since post
sanction or further investigation has never
been directed, but the liberty was granted in
favour of learned court concerned for
taking fresh cognizance of offence in the
strict compliance of section 11 of Essential
Commodities Act, if required.

13. The order passed by learned court
concerned is not in consonance with the
liberty as granted vide order dated
21.03.2025, it would have been in the
nature
for
exonerating/acquitting
the
applicant in absence of specific orders for
prosecution in pursuance to section 11 of
Essential Commodities Act, which was not
available
before
the
learned
court
concerned. Learned court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj taken up
5 All. Durga Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
647
the liberty available under para-10 of the
judgement and order dated 21.03.2025 by
way of invoking the provisions available in
Criminal Procedure Code, which will not
be applicable when the applicant has been
implicated in pursuance to sections 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which is
a Special Act to be followed, wherein the
specific provisions are available and the
matter has to be dealt in accordance with
the same.

14. In the light of observation as made
above along with the dictum pronounced
by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vasanti
Dubey (supra), order dated 02.04.2025
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kasganj is hereby set-aside;
once it has been crystal clearly proves that
there is hardly any sanction of prosecution
in pursuance to section 11 of Essential
Commodities Act available, no purpose
will be served to send the matter back to
learned court concerned and as such entire
proceedings arising out of Case Crime
No.440 of 2021 instituted as Case No.9794
of 2024 (State vs. Rajkumar) is hereby
quashed and set-aside.

15. The instant application u/s 528
BNSS stands allowed accordingly.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 647
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 19916 of 2024
Connected With
Application U/S 482 No. 32200 of 2024

Durga Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Abhishek Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 154 & 482 - U.P.
Prohibition
of
Unlawful
Religious
Conversion Act, 2021 - Sections 2, 3, 3(1),
4, 5, 5(1), 7, 10 & 11 - Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 170,
173, 175 & 528 - Indian Penal Code,
1860-
Sections
419,
420
&
508
-
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 25 &
25(1) - U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Act,
2024 - Sections 4 - Application u/s 482 of
Cr.P.C.
-
assailing
the
entire
Criminal
Proceedings - based on confidential information,
alleging that some individuals were inducing
people to convert to Christianity by offering
money
and
medical
treatment
-
Police
conducted raid - Search & Seizure operation -
SHO lodged FIR - several individuals were
apprehended, and materials related to religious
conversion were seized
- St.ments were
recorded - charge sheet - The applicants taken
plea that the S.H.O. is not an "aggrieved
person" as defined by the Act, which limits the
term to victims or their close relatives, and thus
the FIR and subsequent proceedings are void ab
initio - The core issue before the court is
"whether the FIR registered by the Station
House Officer under the U.P. Prohibition of
Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 is valid,
given the term "any aggrieved person" in
Section 4 of the Act - court finds that, the 2024
amendment to the Act and relevant provisions
of the BNSS, 2023 further clarified and
expanded the scope of informants - court
applying
purposive
interpretation
and
considering constitutional safeguards under
Article 25, held that, (i) the term "any aggrieved
person" includes the S.H.O., especially in cases
of mass conversions involving coercion or fraud
- and (ii) the FIR disclosed cognizable offences
and did not warrant quashing under the Bhajan
Lal guidelines - Accordingly, the application is
dismissed - with liberty to the applicants to raise