HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51317 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Avijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record. 3. This application under Section 528 BNSS / under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Ravindra Kumar and Asmit Kumar, with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 31.05.2025 & cognizance/summoning order dated 06.08.2025 in Criminal Case No. 940 of 2025 (State Vs. Ravindra Kumar & others) arising out of FIR No. 09 of 2025, under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act, 1955, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-Ist, Rampur, with a further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application. 4. The facts in the present case are that a first information report was lodged on 13.01.2025 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants, Shahzeb Khan and Sonu under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 alleging therein that the applicant Ravindra Kumar is the fair price shop dealer. A complaint regarding irregularity was received on which physical verification of stock was conducted wherein his son Asmit Kumar another applicant gave a written statement that his father had become ill and he was running the shop. For the treatment of his father Rs. 50,000/- was taken from Shahzeb Khan on loan which was being asked to be returned but they could not return it. Shahzeb Khan then forcibly in the month of January 2025 came and called Sonu and sold wheat 29.64 quintal and rice 33.76 quintal and took away the whole money. Despite stopping they did not agree to it. On inspection it was found that as per the stocks godown should have 42.23 quintal of wheat, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravindra Kumar And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 48.26 quintal of rice and 60 kilogram of sugar but physically in the godown 31.03 quintal of wheat, 33.37 quintal of rice and 60 kilogram of sugar were found less which shows that there has been irregularity. 5. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet dated 31.05.2025 was filed against Ravindra Kumar, Asmit Kumar and Shahzeb Khan for offence under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act whereas Manish Gupta @ Sonu was not charge- sheeted and his name was mentioned in column 12 of the same. The court of the A.C.J.M.-Ist, Rampur took cognizance upon the same and summoned the accused for offence under Section 3/7 of E.C. The present petition has thus been filed before this Court. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant no.1- Ravindra Kumar is the license holder of fair price shop. His son Asmit Kumar was looking after the shop as his father was ill during which period he had taken loan from co-accused Shahzeb Khan and thus Shahzeb Khan was asking for its return which could not be arranged and thus he took away the said food-grains and sold them in the market and took the money from it. It is submitted that the same was told initially to the authorities concerned and is also the case of the applicants. It is submitted that the applicants have no mens rea in the present matter. It is submitted that the material was sold by stranger who has also been charge-sheeted and thus the applicants are not involved in the present matter. The judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Nathulal Vs. State of M.P.: AIR 1966 SC 43 paragraph 4, 5 & 6 has been placed to submit that since the applicants had no mens rea, the proceedings against them are abuse of process of Court. It is submitted that the proceedings thus be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that on inspection the food-grains in the godown of the applicant no.-1 were found to be less. An explanation has been given by the applicant no.2 who is the son of the license holder about it that co-accused has forcibly taken away the said food-grains and sold it in the market and collected the money and has settled account regarding the loan taken by them. The same at best can be a defence of the applicants to be taken up in the trial at the appropriate stage. Even the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Nathulal (supra) as is being relied was after the full trial and thus the stage in the same was different and is distinguishable on the facts of the present matter. In the present matter evidence is still to be led before the trial court. The law with regard to quashing is trite.The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been elaborately dealt with and NA528 No. 51317 of 2025 2 considered by the Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 and it has been observed and held as under: "13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943- 44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18], the following principles of law emerge: 13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences. 13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. 13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. 13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ?rarest of rare cases?. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.) 13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. 13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. 13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC. 13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping. 13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. 13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. NA528 No. 51317 of 2025 3 13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. 13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. 13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR." 9. The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 has laid a four- step test for High Courts to follow while considering petitions for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held as under: "20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material NA528 No. 51317 of 2025 4 is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See:Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]" 10. Law for quashing is strict and trite. The present case does not fall within the category of cases as enumerated in the judgements of Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (Supra) and also on the four-steps test in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (Supra). No ground for interference is made out. It is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused. Further it is also well settled that that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. 11. In view of the same, looking to the facts and circumstances, the present application U/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. April 8, 2026 AS Rathore NA528 No. 51317 of 2025 5 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad