Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8173 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33961 of 2024 Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Krishna Mishra,Suresh Chand Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 25.6.2022, the cognizance order dated 5.4.2024 and non-bailable warrant dated 23.8.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.14009 of 2024 titled State v. Pramod Gaur and another, arising out of Case Crime No.62 of 2022, under sections 272, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 60(1) of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case at the behest of the complainant. The applicant, a licensed liquor shop owner, was not present during the raid, as the shop was closed at the time. The alleged incident occurred at 09:40 a.m. on 21.12.2022, but the FIR was lodged on the next day at 08:15 a.m., reflecting an unexplained delay. The site plan prepared by the police on 24.2.2022, does not clarify as to who pointed out the relevant location. No recovery was made from the applicant's possession. The co-accused, Pramod Gaur, who was allegedly present at the time of the raid and identified as the applicant's employee, has been disputed by the applicant. Furthermore, the forensic report indicates no adulteration in the recovered liquor. Despite the raid occurring in a public area, no independent witnesses have been included by the prosecution. The counsel relies on Harilal & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2216-2217 of 2011) to emphasize the consequences of delay in registering an FIR. 4. The learned A.G.A. argues that although no recovery was made directly from the applicant, he is implicated as the shop's licensee. The Excise Inspector's statement specifically accuses the applicant, claiming that the co-accused, Pramod Gaur, failed to provide stock records or other documentation related to the sale of liquor. During the inquiry, Pramod Gaur disclosed that the applicant, as the licensee, conspired with him to refill liquor bottles with adulterated contents, affix counterfeit QR codes, and resell them. This activity reportedly caused significant financial losses to the Excise Department, and the co-accused received additional compensation for his role. 5. After hearing both parties and on examining the Excise Inspector's statement and other records, the Court finds that the 23- hour delay in registering the FIR, while raised as a defense, is not significant at this stage, considering the distance of the police station, 15 kilometers, and the time needed for conducting the raid. 6. The issues raised by the applicant's counsel involve factual determinations that are best addressed during the trial. Matters such as evidence evaluation and assessing witness credibility fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The records do not support the claim that the criminal proceedings are malicious or motivated by ulterior motives. Similarly, no procedural illegality or substantial error was found in the summoning order to warrant intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In the aforesaid deliberations, it is prima facie established from perusal of the Excise Inspector's statement that the co-accused, Pramod Gaur, failed to provide stock records or other documentation related to the sale of liquor, and disclosed that the applicant, who is the licensee, conspired with him to refill liquor bottles with adulterated contents, affix counterfeit QR codes, and resell them. The applicant has committed a cognizable offence, and the same needs to be tested during the trial, therefore, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Prima-facie, ingredients of sections 272, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 60(1) of U.P. Excise Act are made out against the applicant. 8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, so far as the prayer to quash the non-bailable warrant is concerned, the Court directs that if the applicant appears before the trial court and files an appropriate application to recall the impugned order, the trial court shall decide the application expeditiously in accordance with the law. No coercive action shall be taken against the applicant for a period of 15 days or until the applicant approaches the trial court, whichever is earlier. Furthermore, the Court cautions against filing frivolous and repetitive personal exemption applications, which, if filed, will be dismissed with appropriate costs. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Anil K. Sharma Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad