HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11297 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. (I.A. No.Nil of 2025) 1. This is an application for amendment in the memo of writ petition supported with an affidavit. 2. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the application for amendment. 3. On due consideration, the application is allowed. 4. Let the amendment(s) be incorporated during the course of the day. (Order on petition) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset states that he does not want to press the instant petition so far as it relates to petitioner No.1 and prays that the same may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue other remedies that may be available to her under law so far as it relates to petitioner No.1. 6. The petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Nishant Mishra, Pankaj Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Khairul Nisha And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) pursue other remedies that may be available to her under law so far as it relates to petitioner No.1. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the respondents-authorities. No notice is being issued to the respondent No.4 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed. 8. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR No.146 of 2025 under Sections 316(5) B.N.S., 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station Harraiya, District Balrampur. 9. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that aforesaid FIR has been lodged under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 316(5) of the B.N.S. 10. As per the allegations leveled in the FIR, it emerges that mother of the petitioner namely Khairul Nisha was the licensee of fair price shop. Upon an inspection, the commodities have been found to be less and have not been distributed which has resulted in the impugned FIR being lodged both against the petitioner as well as his mother. 11. Contention is that from a bare perusal of the FIR, it emerges that the petitioner was working as an Assistant in the said shop and consequently the provisions of Section 316(5) of the B.N.S. may not be attracted as he is not a licensee of the said shop. 12. From perusal of the said FIR, it emerges that the FIR has been lodged both against the licensee of the fair price shop and the petitioner on the ground of non supply of commodities, which were meant to be distributed to the public, and which have been found to be less. The petitioner has been described as an Assistant. At this stage, it cannot be ascertained as to whether in fact he was working as Assistant after due CRLP No. 11297 of 2025 2 permission from the competent authority or was only assisting the licensee of the shop i.e. the mother. 13. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till filing of a charge- sheet/final report. 14. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation failing which they would not be entitled to the benefit of this order. December 3, 2025 prateek CRLP No. 11297 of 2025 3 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench