# Sagar Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 59
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4465 of 2024
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sagar-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52154
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section
202 Cr.P.C - Prohibition of Benami
Property
Transaction
Act,
1988
-.--
Summoning order impugned- complaint u/s 53
of the Act filed stating that search & seizure u/s
132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was conductedDuring inquiry Applicant admitted on oath that
amount was a benami transaction--inquiry
under statutory provision of sec.202 Cr.P.C. is
mandatory-complaint
filed
after
obtaining
sanction-before
Special
Court
having
jurisdiction-limited enquiry by Magistrate to
ascertain whether any case for summoning is
made out-contention of complaint was sufficient
for holding an enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. -no
illegality in the impugned order.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1.Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Coop. Society
Ltd. Vs Oneup Entertainment (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1749

## Text

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.
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 60
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5145 of 2024

Sandeep Miglani ...Applicant
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rama
Soni,
Rohit
Kumar
Tripathi,
Shubhanjali Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Kushagra Dikshit

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section
202 Cr.P.C - Prohibition of Benami
Property
Transaction
Act,
1988
-.--
Summoning order impugned- complaint u/s 53
of the Act filed stating that search & seizure u/s
132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was conductedDuring inquiry Applicant admitted on oath that
amount was a benami transaction--inquiry
under statutory provision of sec.202 Cr.P.C. is
mandatory-complaint
filed
after
obtaining
sanction-before
Special
Court
having
jurisdiction-limited enquiry by Magistrate to
ascertain whether any case for summoning is
made out-contention of complaint was sufficient
for holding an enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. -no
illegality in the impugned order.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1.Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Coop. Society
Ltd. Vs Oneup Entertainment (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1749

2. Azim Premji Vs St. of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine
All 1956

3. Divyajot Singh Jendu Vs Manikaran Analytics
Ltd.: 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 200

4. Cheminova India Ltd. Vs St. of Pun.: 2021
SCC OnLine SC 573

5. "In Re : Expeditious Trial of Cases Under
Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881": 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 325

6. Rosy Vs St. of Kerala: (2000) 2 SCC 230

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rohit Kumar Tripathi,
the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Neerav Chitravanshi and Sri Kushagra
Dixit, the learned counsel for the opposite
parties.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
petitioner has challenged validity of an
order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the IX