Mohd Ishmile vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 July, 2026

Allahabad High Court

Mohd Ishmile vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 July, 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:151963
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 52214 of 2025   
 
   Mohd Ishmile    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Irfan Alim Siddiqui   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 81
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.     

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 20th January, 2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 4th April, 2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1019 of 2023 (State Vs. Ismail & Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 832 of 2022, under Sections 274, 275, 276 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Masuri, District-Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.

SPONSORED

3. Brief facts of the case is that the First Information Report dated 11th November, 2022 has been lodged by O.P, no.2/complainant, against the two named accused persons including the applicant by alleging therein that one secret informer came and informed the informant, who is Drug Inspector that there is fake medicines in the shop owned by Mohd Ismail (applicant) and he is doing business of buying and selling of fake medicines. After getting the information, the informant/opposite party no.2 and Anurodh Kumar reached the District-Masuri Police Station, situated at Ghaziabad on 10.11.2022 at about 12:05 pm. Thereafter the informant alongwith the Police officials went to the M/S Rana Medical store at about 12:40 pm, one more Drug Inspector Vaibhav Babbar also reached there. One person was sitting on the chair and when asked, he told his name as Ismail (applicant). Thereafter all started inspection of the store and found 2 boxes of medicines. It is further alleged that his license of medical store was also found, wherein the date of its issuance has been mentioned as 20.12.2017 and date of its expiry has been mentioned as 19.12.2022, whereas the name of the applicant has been mentioned as registered license holder. On being asked, the applicant replied that he use to buy medicines on cheaper price from one person namely Intaak Ali @ Saddam. The applicant also disclosed that Intaak Ali went to jail several times in past and further gave the information and location of co-accused Intaak and further the applicant disclosed that all the medicines are fake. At the time of inspection the police asked the people to become witness but no one came forward. After lodging of the said first information report, investigation proceeded and after completion of the same, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet on which cognizance/summoning order has been passed, hence the present application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law only with a view to harass the applicant.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contented that from the allegations made in the First Information Report cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. The defence of the applicant cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence.

6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen where the allegation made in the FIR/complaint, even of they are taken at their entirety, prima facie constitutes cognizable offence against the accused.

7. Position of law for invoking the jurisdiction of inherent power of High Court has been settled by the Apex Court in following judgments:-

1. R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866;

2. Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451;

3. State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561;

4. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, 1990 Supp SCC 686;

5. State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;

6. State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222;

7. B.S. Joshi Vs, State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675;

8. Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another, (2007) 13 SCC 165;

9. State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullaha Jilani & others, (2017) 2 SCC 779;

10. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2021 AIR SC 1918.

8. After considering the totality of facts of the case and keeping in mind the position of law, there is no merit in the present application. Apart from that there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is malafide, frivolous and vexatious. The version of the first information report and the statements of the informant/complainant recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C./180 B.N.S.S., recovery of the fake medicines, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory support the prosecution version. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings of the present case cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence.

9.In the result, the prayer for quashing of entire proceeding, charge sheet and cognizance order is refused.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

July 23, 2026

Sushil/-