Amit Kumar Pathak And 2 Others vs. State Of U P And 2 Others

Held

The Court, while not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings, disposed of the petition with a direction to the State authorities. No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioners in connection with the FIR until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned court. This order was made effective as long as the petitioners cooperated with the investigation. The Court did not explicitly address the GST aspect or the validity of the Essential Commodity Act charges in detail, focusing instead on interim protection during the investigation phase. The ratio decidendi appears to be that while criminal proceedings may continue, interim protection can be granted pending investigation, especially when the alleged violations might be subject to ongoing clarification or resolution.

Facts

The petitioners, Amit Kumar Pathak and two others, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered on July 5, 2020, for an offense under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodity Act, 1955. The petitioners, dealing in grains, had purchased 16 quintals of wheat from the open market and stored it in a godown rented by petitioner no. 3. The petitioners argued that a recent law introduced by the Central Government permitted such business practices. They also contended that any alleged violation pertained to GST, which they claimed to have already paid. The State opposed the petition. The High Court, considering the facts and allegations, was not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodity Act, 1955, for storing wheat purchased from the open market, is liable to be quashed, considering the introduction of a new law by the Central Government permitting such transactions? (Question of law) 2. Whether the allegations, if any, pertaining to GST violations, which the petitioners claim to have rectified by paying the demanded GST, warrant the continuation of criminal proceedings under the Essential Commodity Act? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that a recent law introduced by the Central Government on June 5, 2020, permitted businessmen to buy and sell wheat from the market. They contended that the registration of the case was a result of the civil department's "lust" and that any alleged violation was at best a GST issue, which had been resolved by paying the demanded GST. They also submitted that they were reputed individuals and their arrest would cause irreparable loss. Respondent's Arguments: The State counsel opposed the petition.