Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderpal And Another vs State Of Haryana on 18 December, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM M No.11688 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M No.11688 of 2011
Date of Decision: 18.12.2013
Inderpal and another
..Petitioners.
Vs.
State of Haryana
..Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG Haryana for the respondent.
RITU BAHRI, J.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No.132 dated 20.6.2010 registered under Sections 272, 420, 34 IPC at Police Station, Kalanaur, District Rohtak and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apart from the aforesaid FIR, criminal complaint No.336 dated 30.7.2010 under Sections 7 and 16 of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been filed (Annexure P-3). The Food Inspector had taken in his possession eight plastic drums containing about 150 litres of mixed milk. After making necessary samples, sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, who annexed his Kumari Meenu 2013.12.21 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM M No.11688 of 2011 -2- report that the sample contains 4.0% of Milk Fat and 5.88% of Milk solids not fat against the minimum prescribed limit of 4.5% and 8.5% respectively. The sample was found to be adulterated. The allegations in the FIR are identical but after getting the public analyst's report, challan was presented and charges have been framed under Sections 272/273 and 420 IPC and the petitioner is facing trial in the FIR as well as the criminal complaint. The issue whether police can register an FIR for offence punishable under Sections 420/269/270/271 IPC had come up for consideration before this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 2009(1) FAC 238. In that case, ASI Bhagwan Dass on a secret information went to the shop of the accused and purchased Paneer and the Paneer was sent for public analysis and it was found to be adulterated. FIR was registered under Sections 420/269/270/271 IPC and merely a complaint No.59 dated 3.5.2008 under Section 16 of Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act was filed by the Food Inspector. While quashing the FIR, the Court has observed that it was not a case that the Paneer was fake or there was any intention on the part of the accused for cheating public. The Paneer was found to be adulterated and therefore, complaint under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act could be filed and FIR cannot be lodged. In paragraph 8 the Court observed as under:
"So far as the fact that Paneer is fake one, there is no report to this effect on the file. The Patna High Court in the authority in case Satish Mishra Versus State of Bihar and others, 2007(1) FAC 393 has held that when Kumari Meenu 2013.12.21 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM M No.11688 of 2011 -3- there is a special statute under the Prevention ;of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 then by adding sections of IPC, FIR cannot be launched. Keeping in view the fact that Paneer was not found to be fake but was found to be not conforming to the prescribed standard, the proceedings under the Criminal Act cannot continue. So, FIR No.305 dated 6.11.2007 under Sections 420/269/270/271 IPC, Police Station, City Samana and further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed."
This proposition of law could not be disputed by the learned State counsel, however, he informs the Court that the petitioner has been appearing regularly before the trial Court in FIR No.132 dated 20.6.2010 registered under Sections 272, 420, 34 IPC but in the complaint case he has been declared proclaimed offender on 30.11.2012.
Keeping in view the fact that for selling substandard milk, the petitioner was not required to face two criminal proceedings, therefore, FIR No.132 dated 20.6.2010 registered under Sections 272, 420, 34 IPC at Police Station, Kalanaur, District Rohtak is being quashed qua the petitioners. The petitioner shall be at liberty to appear before the trial Court within one month and he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial court.
Disposed of.
( Ritu Bahri ) 18.12.2013 Judge Meenu Kumari Meenu 2013.12.21 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh