Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar Garg And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 23 May, 2012
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Misc. No. M-7268 of 2008 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-7268 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.05.2012.
Pardeep Kumar Garg and others ..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondents - State.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of petitioners, namely, Pardeep Kumar Garg, Kewal Krishan Garg and Ashok Kumar Garg, for quashing of F.I.R. No.33 dated 21.08.2008, under the Insecticides Act, 1968, the Insecticides Rules, 1971, the Seeds Act, 1966, the Seeds (control) Order, 1983, the Fertilizers (Control) Order 1985, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Environment Protection Act 1986 and under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Giddarbaha, District Muktsar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only the complaint is maintainable not the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the present FIR is liable to be Criminal Misc. No. M-7268 of 2008 (O&M) 2 quashed on this ground alone. Learned counsel also submits that only the Insecticides Inspector was competent to launch proceedings against the accused. As per Rule 27 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, allegations, if any, in the complaint is to be investigated by the Insecticides Inspector. The present FIR has been registered against the petitioners, which is totally misuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 102 wherein judgments in Jatinder Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) FAC 437, S.C. Sharma and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 788, Piyara Singh and others v. State of Haryana 2002(3) RCR (Criminal) 290: 2002 (2) RCC 704 and Padam Bansal v. State of Haryana, 2005 (4) RCR (Crl.) 68 have been relied.
Learned State counsel has not disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and also the settled proposition of law, the present deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.33 dated 21.08.2008, under the Insecticides Act, 1968, the Insecticides Rules, 1971, the Seeds Act, 1966, the Seeds (control) Order, 1983, the Fertilizers (Control) Order 1985, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Environment Protection Act 1986 and under Sections 420, 467, 468, Criminal Misc. No. M-7268 of 2008 (O&M) 3 471 IPC registered at Police Station Giddarbaha, District Muktsar as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners, namely, Pardeep Kumar Garg, Kewal Krishan Garg and Ashok Kumar Garg, are hereby quashed. However, it is clarified that this order of mine will not stand in the way of any proceeding being initiated after following due process of law.
23.05.2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE