Madhya Pradesh High Court
Komal Savita vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2014
M.Cr.C.No.4031/2014
5.12.2014 .
Petitioner by Shri Sanjay Bahirani, Advocate.
Respondent/State by Shri R.S. Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
The case is listed today for admission.
Heard on the question of admission.
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR dated 16.9.2013 registered against the petitioner at Crime No.71/2013 for the offence under section 188 of IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 5.3.2013 shop of the petitioner was inspected by Nayab Tahsildar and it is alleged that at the time of inspection the petitioner could not given any proper information in respect to the sale, purchase and running stock of empty cartridges, so petitioner is not filing any monthly statement which is violation of the Circular dated 22.3.2005 and 10.5.2013. As per circular dated 22.3.2005 dealership of arms should be run by dealer/licensee, but at the time of inspection Ankur Verma was found to be present and in this regard no information was sent to the concerned police station and for violation of the aforesaid circular a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 10.9.2013 and while issuing the show cause notice, the Collector has directed the S.H.O. Police Station Morar to register FIR against the petitioner in offence M.Cr.C.No.4031/2014 under section 188 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence under section 188 of IPC, which relates to disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant, could only be registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Prescribes in regard to prosecution for offences under section 172 to 188 of IPC and further mentions that no court shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing by that court or by such officer of that court or a complaint made by a public servant. He has further submitted that there is no complaint made against the petitioner by any public servant or court, hence, proceedings for registration of the offence under section 188 of IPC could not be initiated against the petitioner.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer.
Upto the next date of hearing, no action be taken against the petitioner in regard to registration of the offence under section 188 of IPC.
It is hereby clarified that the Authorities are at liberty to pursue proceedings for rests of the facts.
C.C. as per rules.
(Sushil Kumar Gupta) Judge Pawar/-
M.Cr.C.No.4031/2014