Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2323 of 2019 Petitioner :- Awdesh Kumar Chaturvedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.C.Tiwari(Ac) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that due to some error complete copy of FIR could not be delivered but the gist of the allegations are there in the part already supplied.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned AGA for respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the First Information Report dated 19.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No.535 of 2018, under Sections 420 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act; and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act at P.S. Jalaun, District Jalaun.
The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer and has been made an accused of offences mentioned above.
The gist of the allegation in the impugned First Information Report is that by utilizing data of an Adhaar Card, which is linked to a ration card/ unit attached to petitioners' shop, multiple transactions were made through authentication machine placed at his fair price shop thereby releasing scheduled commodities to different card holders. It is explained in the FIR as to how an authentication machine placed at the fair price shop of a dealer enables release of essential commodities to a unit holder.
The impugned FIR appears to have been lodged after collecting data of 17 fair price shop dealers including the petitioner in the district of Jalaun. Apart from separately specifying such transactions at the level of each fair price shop dealer, it has been stated that the data reveals that in the district of Jalaun in the month of April, 2018, 3194; in May, 2018, 3336 and in June, 2018, 3531 such transactions were noticed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the authentication machine is placed at the shop of each fair price shop dealer but without putting biometrics of a card holder on the machine, authentication slip is not generated and, therefore, release to multiple card holders on common biometrics is not possible unless the entire data is fudged at the level of higher authorities. He also submitted that in similar matters, though in different set of accused and case crime numbers, various protection orders have been passed by this court.
Learned AGA, submitted that though there may be protection orders passed in few matters but no such FIR has been quashed and, therefore, those protection orders are merely to operate pending investigation and they cannot be taken as binding precedent. Learned AGA also submitted that Adhaar Card is a unique identity document which is generated by taking biometrics of its holder. As it is linked to each Ration Card holder/Unit holder, distribution to the holder is activated by taking the biometrics of the holder. If common biometric linked to an Adhaar is used for multiple units/cards, it can be assumed that distribution has been made to fictitious persons or dummy card holders which is suggestive of black marketing of scheduled commodities.
Be that as it may, since the petitioner is a fair price shop dealer and the commodities have been released at his end and authentication has been through a machine placed at his end, prima facie, the petitioner would be the first person to come to know of multiple transactions being made on a unique identity. Hence, the involvement of the dealer, at this stage, cannot be ruled out. The argument that without involvement of others, managing the software, such manipulation was not possible would not come to the rescue of the petitioner because the complicity of others would come when the matter is thoroughly investigated.
Under the circumstances, as the impugned first information report discloses commission of cognizable offences, we decline to quash the First Information Report as against the petitioner. In so far as grant of protection during the course of investigation is concerned, the consistent view is that, ordinarily, when the prayer to quash the FIR is refused no interference should be there with the investigation. However, dependent on facts of each case, court may give interim protection pending investigation. But here we notice that the petitioner is a fair price shop dealer and allegedly authentication has been made from a machine placed at his end therefore the involvement of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Hence, we do not consider it appropriate to grant any protection as it may interfere with the investigation. Otherwise also, the petitioner is at liberty to apply for bail, if so advised.
The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 AKShukla/-