Sonu Agrawal vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the allegations contained in the FIR disclose the ingredients of a cognizable offence. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to quash the impugned FIR. The Court reasoned that the grounds raised by the petitioner, such as the alleged lack of procedure and the genuineness of the paint cans, constitute the petitioner's defence. Such defence arguments cannot be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an FIR. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the dismissal was made without prejudice to the petitioner's right to apply for bail or anticipatory bail.
Facts
The petitioner, Sonu Agrawal, sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) dated 16.02.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 177 of 2022, at Police Station Highway, District Mathura. The FIR was filed under Sections 420 IPC and Sections 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner's counsel argued that paint cans were recovered from his shop and seized, with the FIR alleging they were not genuine. It was contended that no proper procedure was followed, and the FIR lacked basis for deeming the paint cans fake. The petitioner asserted that the paint cans were purchased from the manufacturer and GST was duly paid, making the FIR false and liable for quashing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) dated 16.02.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 177 of 2022, under Sections 420 IPC and Sections 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that no proper procedure was followed and the allegations regarding the paint cans being fake/duplicate are unsubstantiated, and that GST was duly paid on their purchase. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the FIR was false and liable to be quashed. They contended that no procedure was followed in the seizure of paint cans from their shop, and the FIR did not provide any basis for concluding that the paint cans were fake or duplicate. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that the paint cans were legitimately purchased from the manufacturer, with GST duly paid, implying lawful possession and sale.
Sections Cited
Section 420, Section 63, Section 64
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2777 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sonu Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Namit Kumar Sharma,Virendra Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
This writ petition seeks quashing of the First Information Report dated 16.02.2022 giving rise the Case Crime No. 177 of 2022, under Sections 420 IPC, Section 63, & 64 of Copyright Act (Amended), 1957, Police Station Highway, District Mathura.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that some paint cans were allegedly recovered from the shop of the petitioner. The same was seized and the first information report says that they are not genuine. It is contended that no procedure has been followed in this regard and there is nothing in the first information report to indicate as to the basis on which the paint cans are stated to be fake/ duplicate. It is also contended that these paint cans had been purchased from the manufacturer and GST etc. has been duly paid. The first information report is false and liable to be q
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.