At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL
For the Petitioner: Anil Upman, Advocate. For the Respondent: Jitendra Shrimali, P.P., Anil Darya, IO/SHO, Transport Nagar, Jaipur.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The accused-petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside the investigation pending against him in respect of FIR No. 311/2009 registered at Police Station Transport Nagar, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 487 & 120-B IPC read-with
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
Sections 18(a)(i), 27(a)(i), 27(b)(i), 27(c), 27(d), 18(c)/27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act read-with Sections 102, 103 & 104 of the Trade Mark Act and read-with Sections 63 & 65 of the Copy Right Act.
3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on a source information a raid was conducted on 23.12.2009 at a residential house by a competent officer under the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and a large quantity of misbranded, adulterated, spurious drugs were found and two persons namely; Akram and Nisar were arrested and aforesaid FIR came to be registered.
4. During the course of initial investigation, it was found that two persons took the aforesaid house on rent for the purpose of manufacture and packaging of spurious drugs. On further investigation involvement of co-accused-Shri Navneet Sharma, brother of the petitioner, was found in the incident and he was arrested and on his information some more spurious drugs were recovered from a house situated at Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and four more persons were arrested. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against as many as seven persons including brother of the petitioner-Shri Navneet Sharma for various offences and investigation against the petitioner and some other persons was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although FIR was registered in the year 2009, but till now no legally admissible evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency even prima facie showing involvement of the petitioner in the said incident and his name has appeared only during the course of interrogation of one or two co-accused. It was further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in view of total absence of any legal evidence against the petitioner it is but abuse of process of law to keep investigation pending against the petitioner for an indefinite period and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is absconding from the very beginning and he could not be arrested although every effort was made by the Investigating Agency and, therefore, further evidence could not have been collected showing his involvement in the incident.
7. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the evidence so far collected during investigation, which has been produced before me by way of case diary, I find that there is no legally admissible evidence available on record showing even prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the said incident and it is but abuse of process of law to keep pending investigation against him. Merely because name of the petitioner appeared during the course of interrogation of one or two co-accused, it cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in the incident in any manner.
8. Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed and in the investigation pending to the extent of the petitioner in respect of FIR No. 311/2009 registered at Police Station Transport Nagar, Jaipur registered for the aforesaid offences is quashed and set aside.