Criminal Misc. No.M-26259 of 2010 (O&M) v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.35 dated

4.3.2002(Annexure P-1) under Sections 406/ 409 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Muktsar as well as order dated 1.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) framing charge against the petitioners and also order dated 28.4.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Sessions Judge, Muktsar. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:- “It is being informed to you that M/s Gurpreet Rice Mills Muktsar is the licencee of the department under the Criminal Misc. No.M-26259 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Punjab Trade Articles Licensing Control Ordedr 1983, whose licence number is M.K.T.P.T.A.W./454 which is valid till 31.3.2002. For the year 2000/2001, this firm was allotted 18990 bags of A grade paddy weighing 9498 Qtls. for milling purpose under the Punjab Government Levy Control Order 1983. This firm was to deliver the entire turn out rice after being prepared as per specification in the account of State Government to FCI upto 28.2.2001 but the firm has delivered only 1791.40 Qtl. of rice in the Government Account upto 28.2.2002 and remaining 4287.32 Qtl of rice were neither delivered in the account of Government nor the value of the rice has deposited in the Government Treasury. On

14.6.2001, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Jaitu conducted the physical verification of the Rice Mill. During physical verification, the firm was failed to produce the record at the spot. The firm was issued show cause notice dated 15.10.2001 to explain the reasons for converting the paddy into rice unauthorizedly and also for shortage of the paddy/rice, but no reply was received from the firm. The firm has also not deposited the value of the remaining rice or paddy in the Government account. On 28.2.2002, undersigned after joining Shri Gurjant Singh, Proprietor of the firm of M/s Gurpreet Rice Criminal Misc. No.M-26259 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Mills, Jalalabad Road, Muktsar conducted physical verification. During physical verification, no stock of rice or paddy was found in the Rice Mill. The proprietor of the firm Gurjant Singh refused to sign physical verification report and failed to produce the record at the spot. In this way firm has violated the provisions of Punjab Rice Procurement and Levy Control Order, 1983, the Punjab Trade Articles Licence Controller Order 1992, Provisions of E.C.Act and Government instructions and by misappropriating 4287.32 Qtls of remaining rice of Government and by converting the paddy into rice unauthorizedly caused heavy financial loss of about Rs.43 lacs to the Government. For the recovery of same, police case be registered against Shri Gurjant Singh proprietor of the firm under the relevant sections and copy of FIR under the relevant sections and copy of FIR be sent to this office.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR in question as well as proceedings were liable to be quashed as there was no agreement executed between the parties qua the milling of paddy. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Criminal Misc. No.M-26259 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the Criminal Misc. No.M-26259 of 2010 (O&M) 5 FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to Criminal Misc. No.M-26259 of 2010 (O&M) 6 spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” In the present case, paddy was given to the petitioners for milling. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioners had misappropriated 4287.32 Qtl. of rice and thus the Government had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.43,00,000/-. Keeping in the view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out as it would not be in the interest of justice to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold. The petitioners would be free to take up all the pleas available to them during trial to establish their innocence. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. September 08, 2010 (SABINA) JUDGE