Patna High CourtCR. MISC./59005/2021withdrawn

Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2022-09-15Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59005 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-275 Year-2021 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR S/o JAWAHAR PRASAD KUSHWAHA R/o VILLAGEKHALWA KHAP, P.S-NAUTAN, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

2. Manoranjan Prasad, Son of Late Ayodhya Bhagat, Resident of Village Latra, P.S. Gopalpur, District Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present application has been filed for quashing the FIR of Nautan P.S. Case No. 275 of 2021 which was registered under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had given information to the District Agricultural Officer that urea is being sold at a higher rate by Kushwaha Khad Bij Bhandar, Nautan Bazar who directed the informant to institute a case against the said licensee which is clear from the letter no. 1627, dated 26.07.2021 of the District Agricultural Officer, West Champaran but the informant for reasons best known to him instituted the FIR against the said licensee but in the column of the accused the name of the petitioner was also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59005 of 2021(2) dt.15-09-2022 2/2 included who basically had only informed the competent authority that the said licensee is indulging in black marketing. Learned counsel next submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no allegation has been levelled against the petitioner and the entire allegation hinges around the licensee of urea but still the petitioner has been made an accused.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application.

Permission is accorded with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues at the time of framing of charge. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T