Anil Rathi And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the Case No.978 of 2006 (State Vs. Rajendra & others) arising out of Charge-sheet No.142 of 2003 dated 28.07.2003 and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2003, under Sections 60/62 of the Excise Act and Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that no recovery was made from the possession of the applicants and the entire case is based upon statements allegedly given by certain witnesses, who have subsequently denied the prosecution story on oath by filing affidavits. It is further submitted that there are no independent witnesses to support the prosecution case and the investigation suffers from serious infirmities.

3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the application and submitted that prima facie case is made out and the matter requires trial but has not filed any counter affidavit till date.

4. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the prosecution case is primarily based on statements of witnesses namely Saleem, Rahees, Neeraj and Narendra. However, these witnesses have subsequently filed affidavits stating that they have neither witnessed the alleged incident nor given any statement to the police.

5. The absence of independent witnesses in a case of alleged recovery further weakens the prosecution case. It is well settled that where recovery is made in public places, non-association of independent witnesses creates doubt on the prosecution story.

6. It is also noteworthy that no recovery has been made from the possession of the present applicants. Their implication appears to be based only on alleged disclosure statements and assumptions regarding ownership of the premises.

7. The record further reveals inconsistencies in the investigation, including change of investigating authorities and contradictions in the charge-sheet, wherein initially only two persons were charge-sheeted and subsequently more persons were implicated without cogent material.

8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 60/62 of the Excise Act and Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 420, 467, 468 IPC are not made out against the applicants. The continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

9. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The Case No.978 of 2006 (State Vs. Rajendra & others) arising out of Charge-sheet No.142 of 2003 dated 28.07.2003 and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2003, under Sections 60/62 of the Excise Act and Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar are hereby quashed.

11. No order as to costs.

(Sandeep Jain,J.)

May 7, 2026

Jitendra