# Smt. Farmeeda Begum v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1631
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No.14626 of 2021
- **Bench:** Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-farmeeda-begum-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48462
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - FIR-No
specific allegation- Applicant is fair Price shop
dealer- only allegation-charges more than the
fixed
price-distribute
commodities
in
less
quantity-no reference of any violation of any
control order in the FIR-but section 3/7 of
Essential
commodities
Act
is
imposed-not
sufficient to convict the accused-Applicant-case
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance-criminal proceeding quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Smt. Farmeeda Begum Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1631
under section 202 Cr.P.C. to direct the
investigation to be made by a police officer
or by such other person as he thinks fit.

14.

Section
202(1)
Cr.P.C.
provides as follows:

 "Any Magistrate, on receipt of a
complaint of an offence of which he is
authorised to take cognizance or which has
been made over to him under section 192,
may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case
where the accused is residing at a place
beyond the area in which he exercises his
jurisdiction postpone the issue of process
against the accused, and either inquire into
the case himself or direct an investigation
to be made by a police officer or by such
other person as he thinks fit, for the
purpose of deciding whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding:

15. Provided that no such direction
for investigation shall be made-

 (a) where it appears to be
Magistrate that the offence complained of
is triable exclusively by the Court of
Sessions; or

(b) where the complaint has not
been made by a Court, unless the
complainant and the witnesses present (if
any) have been examined on oath under
section 200."
----------

(2022)05ILR A1631
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Application U/S 482 No.14626 of 2021
Smt. Farmeeda Begum ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri S.M. Iqbal Hasan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Girish Chandra Yadav

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - FIR-No
specific allegation- Applicant is fair Price shop
dealer- only allegation-charges more than the
fixed
price-distribute
commodities
in
less
quantity-no reference of any violation of any
control order in the FIR-but section 3/7 of
Essential
commodities
Act
is
imposed-not
sufficient to convict the accused-Applicant-case
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance-criminal proceeding quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Babubhai Vs St. of Guj., 2010 CJ(SC) 1429

2. Jahoor Vs St. of U.P. & anr.

3. St. of Haryana & ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal &
ors., in Civil Appeal No.5412 of 1990

4. Prakash Babu Raghubansi Vs St. of M.P.,
(2004) 7 SCC 482

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.M. Iqbal Hasan,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Girish
Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2, Sri Arvind Kumar,
learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.

2. This criminal misc. application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to
quash the entire criminal proceeding of
1632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case No.4907 of 2021 (State Vs. Farmeeda
Begum and others), including Charge Sheet
No.68 of 2021, dated 18.03.2021, arising
out of Case Crime No.412 of 2020, under
sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 409,
IPC and section 3/7 Essential Commodities
Act, Police Station Munda Pandey, District
Moradabad, as well as cognizance order
dated 26.03.2021, passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1,
Moradabad.

3. Applicant is an accused in the
aforesaid case. FIR has been lodged on
21.11.2020,
on
the
application
of
complainant
Mohini
Mishra,
Supply
Inspector, Tehsil Sadar Moradabad. The
application addressed to the SHO/SO,
Police Station Munda Pandey, District
Moradabad, and it is mentioned that kindly
take reference to the letter No.3814 dated
08.09.2020 of Additional Commissioner,
Food & Supply Department, Moradabad,
annexing
the
letter
No.369
dated
22.06.2020 of Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra,
Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. and
letter No.256 dated 11.02.2020 of Vishal
Bharadwaja, Staff Officer, Chief Secretary
& Additional Director (Administration).
The inquiry report of Food Cell, forwarded
for necessary action. In continuation of the
aforesaid you are hereby informed that the
D.O. Letter No.110 dated 22.01.2020 of
Mr. Dayanand Mishra, S.P. Food Cell,
annexing the photocopy of the inquiry
report of Mr. Umesh Chand Pandey, Police
Inspector, Food Cell, dated 08.01.2022.
According to inquiry report, the allegations
levelled against Smt. Farmeeda Begum,
was inquired by Mr. Umesh Chand Pandey,
Police Inspector, Food Cell, Kanpur and
according to inquiry report, Smt. Farmeeda
Begum, has not properly distributed the
Essential Commodities from April-2018 to
July-2018, and she committed black
marketing of it. The quantity of distributed
commodities was determined by her own
will and she has charged more price than
the fixed price and has not distributed the
commodities and kerosene oil. She has also
committed
forgery
and
cheating,
by
preparing false distribution register, false
distribution certificate and false 'Farms Ka
& Kha'. It is recommended that for the
aforesaid act of Smt. Farmeeda Begum, a
case under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, &
409, IPC and section 3/7 Essential
Commodities Act, be registered against her
and her agreement be cancelled. Mr. Mitra
Pal
Singh,
the
member
of
the
Administrative
Committee
of
Grama
Panchayat, Mudiya Malookpur Mustkam,
Block Munda Pandey, Tehsil and District
Moradabad,
in
collusion
with
Smt.
Farmeeda Begum has given a false
certificate that Essential Commodities have
been properly distributed, which shows his
prima-facie involvement in the matter,
hence case under sections 120-B, 420, 467,
468 and 471, IPC, be also registered against
him. The agreement of fair price shop of
Smt.
Farmeeda
Begum,
Mudiya
Malookpur, has already been cancelled on
21.05.2019
by
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Sadar.
After
investigation
charge sheet has been submitted.

4. Contentions of learned counsel for
the applicant are that the applicant is a fair
price shop dealer. She was running her
shop in strict compliance by the provision
of Control Orders under the supervision of
three layer system i.e. distribution through
camp, monitoring and checking by village
Administrative Committee and third by the
officials of the department. The frivolous
and false complaint dated 17.07.2018 was
lodged against the applicant by the rival
group alleging that she has not properly
distributed the commodities. Prior to this
5 All. Smt. Farmeeda Begum Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1633
complaint also a complaint was made
against the applicant pursuant thereto the
cancellation order was passed and the
Hon'ble High Court was pleased to stay the
cancellation order by means of order dated
21.02.2018 Consequently her agreement
was restored on 12.03.2018. Within four
months
the
second
complaint
dated
17.07.2018 was again filed by the rival
factions. After thorough inquiry the Area
Food
Officer
made
a
report
dated
30.07.2018 whereby he has stated that
complaint was frivolous and forged.
Another
complaint
was
made
on
23.07.2018. On this complaint the Sub
Divisional Officer issued a charge sheet
and sought explanation from the applicant.
The applicant filed reply and refuting the
allegations along with evidences. Sub
Divisional
Officer
Sadar,
Moradabad
considered the reply and passed order dated
10.11.2018 wherein he has mentioned that
in the village day to day complaints are
being made against each other, therefore, it
would be proper to hold an open meeting of
Villagers so that the complaint may be
disposed of properly. When the repeated
efforts of complainant were failed and
every time after inquiry complaints were
found false then Mangal Singh and Shakeel
again moved a complaint in Tehsil Diwas,
pursuant thereto Revenue Inspector was
authorized
to
conduct
inquiry.
The
complainant approached the Inspector and
offered illegal gratification and prepared a
forge report sitting at the house of Mangal
Singh. The several photographs were
available while he was hosting a break fast,
the applicant made a complaint of this
event to the authority and when no action
was taken against the Revenue Inspector
the applicant moved an application before
the Head Mahila Ayog, Chief Minister of
Uttar Pradesh, Commissioner Principal
Secretary
and
District
Magistrate
requesting
therein
for
proper
action.
Having knowledge of the complaint made
by the applicant, the departmental officers
become infuriated and challenged the
applicant for teaching her a lesson. In
compliance of the order dated 14.01.2019
applicant has filed detailed reply to the
charge sheet alongwith three months
distribution record on 03.01.2019. The
authorities concerned instead of holding
open meeting proceeded in the matter and
passed
the
cancellation
order
dated
21.02.2019. Against the cancellation order
the applicant has preferred a Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.8861 of 2019. The
Hon'ble High Court was pleased to stay the
operation of the impugned order till the
next date of listing and thereafter on
25.04.2019 the writ petition was dismissed
on the ground of alternative remedy. The
applicant preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner
Moradabad
Division
Moradabad. During pendency of the appeal
the Supply Inspector issued an order dated
06.07.2019
whereby
he
asked
the
distribution record in pursuance to some
back dated order dated 29.01.2019. The
applicant challenged the validity of the
order by means fo writ petition No.23138
of 2019. The Hon'ble High Court was
pleased to stay the order dated 06.07.2019
till the next date of listing. Meanwhile the
appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner
Moradabad
Division
Moradabad
on
25.11.2019, against which the applicant has
preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.21116 of 2020 before this Hon'ble
Court, which is pending consideration. The
respondent authorities being prejudiced and
having malice against the applicant, has
proceeded in the matter despite having the
stay
order
dated
18.07.2019.
Civil
proceeding is pending and there is no
evidence which remotely connect the
applicant with black marketing. Allegations
1634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against the applicant are general. There is
no specific allegations.

It is further contended that
investigating officer has annexed the record
distribution as part of case diary. The
investigating officer also recorded the
statement of Mohd. Zaki, the person, is
now a subsequent dealer appointed in place
of Farmeeda and he was instrumental in the
cancellation of the agreement of the shop of
the applicant. He is prejudiced and not
independent witness. The learned counsel
also contended that neither in the FIR nor
in the entire case diary there is any
reference of any control order violation,
hence no offence under section 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act is made out.

Learned counsel for the applicant
further contended that from the impugned
cognizance order it transpires that no
reasoning have been given instead the order
is a mechanical order, therefore, the
cognizance order is illegal and liable to be
quashed. The allegations against the
applicant is of forgery and preparing forged
distribution
certificate
where
as
the
distribution was made by the applicant
correctly under videography and still
photograph but in spite of that due to
village party politics and due to annoyance
of respondent authorities the present
criminal proceeding has been initiated
against the applicant. Annoyed with the
repeated relief granted by the High Court,
criminal
case
has
been
instituted
maliciously, due to reason that applicant
has made a complaint to higher authorities
against the revenue inspector, FIR has been
lodged with ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance. It is evident that the entire
proceeding against the applicant, who is
lady is malicious, prejudiced and due to
party politics whereas the fact of the matter
is that no offence is made out against the
applicant. Without collecting the expert
examiner report, the investigating officer
filed charge sheet, which is apparently
erroneous. There is no direct evidence
which indicates that the applicant has
committed any crime. The present criminal
proceeding is nothing but manifestly
attended with malafide as the applicant has
made complaint of the official, who
became prejudiced against her.

Learned counsel for the applicant
placed reliance on the case of 'Babubhai
Vs. State of Gujarat, 2010 CJ(SC) 1429
and also on the case of 'Jahoor Vs. State
of U.P. and another', in Criminal Revision
No.569 of 2021, decided on 25.10.2021.

5. Learned AGA for the State and
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
submitted that after inquiry by food cell it
was found that applicant has committed
irregularities in distribution of essential
commodities and she has sold the Ration in
black market. There are clear allegations
against the applicant. The investigating
officer has recorded the statements of the
witnesses and has collected material
evidence during the course of investigation
and on the basis of credible evidence, has
submitted the charge sheet. The learned
Magistrate being satisfied with it has taken
cognizance on it. There is no sufficient
grounds to quash the charge sheet or
summoning order. There is no illegality in
the impugned summoning order.

6. Admittedly the applicant was a fare
price shop dealer of Village Mudiya
Malookpur, District Moradabad. The FIR
has been lodged against her on 21.11.2020.
In the affidavit filed in support of the
application, the applicant has given details
of various complaints and proceedings,
5 All. Smt. Farmeeda Begum Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1635
which has been made against her, prior to
this FIR. It is specifically stated that on
17.07.2018 a complaint was lodged against
her for not property distributing the
commodities. Prior to this complaint,
another complaint was made against her
and cancellation order was passed. The
High Court was pleased to stay the
cancellation order, by means of order dated
21.02.2018. Consequently, her agreement
was restored on 12.03.2018. It is further
stated that within four months, second
complaint dated 17.04.2018 was again filed
by the rival, and after thorough inquiry this
complaint was found frivolous and forged.
Another
complaint
was
made
on
23.07.2018 and on this complaint the Sub
Divisional Officer issued a charge sheet
and sought explanation from the applicant.
The Sub Divisional Officer passed the
order dated 10.11.2018 mentioning therein
that in the village day to day complaint are
being made against each other, therefore, it
would be proper to hold an open meeting of
villagers, but no open meeting was held.
Again
a
complaint
was
made
on
16.10.2018 in Tehsil Diwas, which was
disposed of by order dated 23.10.2018. It is
further alleged that when repeated efforts
of complainant failed and every time
complaints were found false, then a
complaint was moved in Tehsil Diwas and
revenue
inspector
was
authorized
to
conduct
the
inquiry.
Complainant
approached
him
and
offered
illegal
gratification and prepared a forged report,
setting at the house of complainant Mangal
Singh. Several photographs were available
hosting a breakfast. The applicant has
raised these matters to the concerned
authorities and when no action was taken
against the revenue inspector, she moved
applications before Mahila Ayog, Chief
Minister of U.P. and other authorities for
proper action against the revenue inspector.
Having knowledge of complaint, the
departmental officers became infuriated
and challenged the applicant for teaching a
lesson.
The
FIR
has
been
lodged
maliciously. In counter affidavit filed by
the opposite party, the aforesaid facts have
not been specifically controverted. So from
the material available on record it is
established that prior to lodging of this FIR,
several false and frivolous complaints were
filed against the applicant and ultimately
inquiry was entrusted to the revenue
inspector,
who
was
approached
by
complainant party and applicant made a
complaint against him.

7. All the allegations of the FIR are
general in nature. There is no specific
allegation. The only allegations of the FIR
are that the fair price shop dealer, charges
more than the fixed price, and distribute
commodities in less quantity and when
weighed at home, it weight is found less. In
the statements of witnesses recorded by the
instigating officer also there are almost
general allegations in the nature mentioned
above. Witnesses Mohd. Zaki is the
persons who has got fair price shop after
cancellation of the quota of accusedapplicant. There is also no specific
allegations that what kind of forgery has
been committed by the accused-applicant
and which entry is forged. In absence of
specific allegations, the ofence of cheating
and forgery cannot be proved. There is no
reference of any violation of any control
order in the FIR, but section 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act has been
imposed. So, if the evidence available on
record is taken on its face value as true,
even then it will not be sufficient to convict
the accused-applicant.

8. In case of 'State of Haryana and
others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others', in
1636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Appeal No.5412 of 1990, decided on
21.11.1990, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph no.108 has laid down following
norms for exercising powers under section
482 Cr.P.C.":-

"108. 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 the 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 the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised.

(i). 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 F. I. R.
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 allegations in the
F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable
offence
but
constitute
only
a
noncognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an
order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(v). Where the allegations made
in the F.I.R. 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
oncerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(vii).
Where
a
criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Prakash Babu Raghubansi Vs.
State of M.P., (2004) 7 SCC 482, in
paragraph
no.5
has
made
following
observations:-
5 All. Smt. Nanhi Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1637

"Section 7 refers to contravention
of any order made under Section 3. It is
essential for bringing in application of
Section 7 to show that some order has been
made under Section 3 and the order has
been contravened. Section 3 deals with
powers to control production, supply,
distribution etc. of essential commodities.
Exercise of such powers, can be done by
"order". According to Section 2(c) "notified
order" means an order notified in the
official
Gazettee,
and
Section
(CC)
provides that "order" includes a direction
issued thereunder."

So the Hon'ble Apex Court has
propounded that for an offence under
section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act,
violation of any commody control order,
should be there.

10. It is clear from the analysis of
material on record that the criminal
proceeding of this case is maliciously
attended with malafide. It has been
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accusedapplicant with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge. It is also clear
that, even if the evidence available on the
record is taken on its face value as true,
even then it will not be sufficient to convict
the accused-applicant.

11. The preposition of law as laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
'State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.
Bhajan
Lal
and
others'(supra)
and
"Prakash Babu Raghubansi Vs. State of
M.P.(supra), are fully applicable on the
present
case.
Keeping
in
view
the
proposition
of
law
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the present
application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is
liable to be allowed.

12. The criminal misc. application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and
the entire criminal proceedings relating to
aforementioned case is hereby quashed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1637
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA
SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3254 of 2005

Smt. Nanhi Devi & Anr.
 ...Applicants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Subodh Kumar, Sri I.H. Ansari, Sri Udit
Chandra, Sri Anurag Sharma (A.C.)

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Anurag Sharma (A.C.)

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
-Sections 302/34 & 201 - Conviction under.
Child testimony- testimony of a child witness
aged about 8 years it is trite in law that the
evidence of a child witness has to be subjected
to closest scrutiny and can be accepted only if
the court comes to the conclusion that the child
is a competent witness within the meaning of
Section 18 Evidence Act. A child witness can be
a competent witness provided that the St.ment
of such a child witness is reliable, truthful and is
corroborated by the prosecution evidence.

B. Suspicion howsoever strong may not take the
place of truth. The prosecution must stand or
fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any
strength form the weaknesses of the defense.

C. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 174 - Purpose of
inquest- the object of the proceedings under