Niraj Chaubey vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The applicant, Niraj Chaubey, sought to quash proceedings initiated by a complaint case filed under various sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the summoning order dated June 13, 2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. The applicant was named as an accused, along with ten others, based on allegations of spurious drugs being found. The applicant contended that his name surfaced solely on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused, Ashok Kumar, and that he is innocent. The State, however, argued that the applicant was implicated not only on the confessional statement but also due to allegations of preparing forged GST Bills and making payments into accounts indicated by other co-accused.

Held

The Court held that the crucial question was the extent of judicial intervention at the current stage. While acknowledging the confessional statement of co-accused Ashok Kumar, the Court found that there was sufficient material on record, including allegations that the applicant prepared forged GST Bills and facilitated payments into named accounts, thereby providing aid in the alleged criminality. The Court reasoned that given this evidence, it would not "throttle the investigation" at this stage. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the summoning order. The application was rejected, and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 39065 of 2024 and the summoning order dated 13.06.2024, under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(b), 18(c), 18A/27(b)(ii), 27(c), 27(d), 28 & 28A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, can be quashed based on the applicant's contention that his involvement is solely based on a co-accused's confessional statement, thereby violating principles of natural justice and established precedents. Petitioner's Argument: The applicant argued that his name surfaced only due to the confessional statement of Ashok Kumar and that he is innocent, relying on the Madras High Court's decision in P. Pragasam Vs. State. The proceedings should be quashed as they are based on insufficient evidence against him. Revenue's Argument: The State contended that the applicant was not solely implicated based on the confessional statement. The complaint contained clear allegations that the applicant prepared forged GST Bills and made payments into specified bank accounts, thus providing aid in the alleged criminality. This material, according to the State, was sufficient to continue the proceedings.