Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
257(1) The criminal application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodgedby the Food Safety Officer on allegations that he hasconducted a raid and during the raid, co-accused SayaydFaizan Sayyad Rasul was found in possession of thecontraband articles like scented tobacco, scented nuts, andpan masala…
- Para 55. Per contra, learned APP for the State strongly opposedthe said contentions and submitted that considering thestatement of the co-accused, on the basis of which, it revealsthat the present applicant deals with the supply of the saidcontraband articles. Thus, prima facie case is made outagainst…
Judgment
Judgment9 apl968.251IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPURCRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.968/2025Namdev s/o Laxman Shevale, aged 58years, occupation: business, r/o Laxmi Nagar, Gorakshan Road, Akola, taluka and districtAkola. ….. Applicant.:: V E R S U S ::1. State of Maharashtra, through itsPolice Station Officer, PoliceStation Patur, district Akola.
Food Safety Officer, Food and DrugAdministration (MS), Akola. ….. Non-applicants.================================Shri S.Mohta, Counsel for the Applicant. Shri N.B.Jawade, APP for NA No.1/State.================================CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.DATE : 25/02/2026ORAL JUDGMENT1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.2. By this application, the applicant is seeking quashingof FIR in connection with Crime No.408/2021 registered withnon-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections.....2/- Judgment9 apl968.252118, 272, 273, and 328 of the IPC along with Sections 30(2)(a), 3, 26(2)(j), 26(2)(iv), and 59 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.
The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodgedby the Food Safety Officer on allegations that he hasconducted a raid and during the raid, co-accused SayaydFaizan Sayyad Rasul was found in possession of thecontraband articles like scented tobacco, scented nuts, andpan masala etc. worth of Rs.13401/-. Accordingly, he hasseized the said contraband articles and during investigation, itrevealed that present applicant is supplier of the saidcontraband articles. On the basis of said statement of co-accused, he has arrayed as accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted thatexcept statement of co-accused, there is no material collectedby the investigating agency. During the investigation, itrevealed that the present applicant was in possession ofcontraband articles in contravention of the provisions of the.....3/- Judgment9 apl968.253Food Safety and Standards Act. None of statements showsinvolvement of the present applicant in supply of the saidarticles to other co accused. He has submitted that even noinvestigation was conducted to ascertain whether the presentapplicant is supplier of the said contraband articles. Thus, atthis stage, no prima facie case is made out against the presentapplicant and, therefore, the FIR registered against presentapplicant on the basis of the statement of the co-accuseddeserves to be quashed and set aside as statement of the co-accused is not admissible in law.
Per contra, learned APP for the State strongly opposedthe said contentions and submitted that considering thestatement of the co-accused, on the basis of which, it revealsthat the present applicant deals with the supply of the saidcontraband articles. Thus, prima facie case is made outagainst the present applicant. In view of that, the applicationdeserves to be rejected......4/- Judgment9 apl968.2546. After hearing both sides and perusing the entireinvestigation papers, it reveals that during the raid, the co-accused are found in possession of the contraband articlesand, therefore, they were enquired as to from whompossession they have obtained the said contraband articlesand it revealed that the applicant has supplied the saidcontraband articles. 7. Thus, the investigation papers it reveal that except thestatement of the co-accused, there is no material to connectthe applicant with the alleged offence.
Moreover, theinvestigating officer has not conducted any investigating toascertain whether really the applicant was connected withsupply of contraband articles or not.8. The law relating to quashing of FIRs was explained bythe Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana andors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors, reported in 1992 Supplementary(1) SCC 335 wherein principles have been laid down which.....5/- Judgment9 apl968.255are required to be considered while considering applicationsfor quashing of the FIRs, which read as under:
(a) where the allegations made in the FirstInformation Report or the complaint, even ifthey are taken at their face value andaccepted in their entirety do not prima facieconstitute any offence or make out a caseagainst the accused; (b) where the allegations in the FirstInformation Report and other materials, ifany, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclosea cognizable offence, justifying an investi-gation by police officers under Section156(1) of the Code except under an order ofa Magistrate within the purview of Section155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegationsmade in the FIR or 'complaint and theevidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offenceand make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do notconstitute a cognizable offence but constituteonly a non-cognizable offence, noinvestigation is permitted by a police officerwithout an order of a Magistrate ascontemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; .....6/- Judgment9 apl968.256(e) where the allegations made in the FIR orcomplaint are so absurd and inherentlyimprobable on the basis of which no prudentperson can ever reach a just conclusion thatthere is sufficient ground for proceedingagainst the accused; (f) where there is an express legal barengrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which acriminal proceeding is instituted) to theinstitution and continuance of theproceedings and/or where there is a specificprovision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for thegrievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestlyattended with mala fide and/or where theproceeding is maliciously instituted with anulterior motive for wreaking vengeance onthe accused and with a view to spite him dueto private and personal grudge.
9.
Operative part
In view of above parameters, as the applicationdeserves to be allowed, I proceed to pass following order:ORDER.....7/- Judgment9 apl968.257(1) The criminal application is allowed. (2) FIR in connection with Crime No.408/2021 registeredwith non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 118, 272, 273, and 328 of the IPC along with Sections 30(2)(a), 3, 26(2)(j), 26(2)(iv), and 59 of the FoodSafety and Standard Act, 2006 is hereby quashed and setaside to the extent of present applicant Namdev s/o LaxmanShevale. (3) Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Application stands disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !!...../-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 257(1) The criminal application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Food Safety andStandard Act, 2006; Food Safety and Standards Act; FoodSafety and Standard Act, 2006.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.