Jharkhand High Court
Praveen Kumar Lall vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 17 February, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (4) AJR 673, 2017 AJR 673, (2017) 176 ALLINDCAS 351 (JHA), (2017) 2 JLJR 16, (2017) 2 JCR 722 (JHA)
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P No. 794 of 2005
Praveen Kumar Lall ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Deptt.
Government of Jharkhand.
3. Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh.
4. Inspector-cum-Officer Incharge,
Ramgarh P.S., District Hazaribagh.
5. Sri Pritvhi Nath Ram,
Inspector-cum-Officer Incharge,
Ramgarh P.S., District Hazaribagh. ....... Respondents
--------
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate.
Mrs.Pragati Prasad, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. T.N. Verma, Advocate
---------
14/17.02.2017Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
2. This application has been filed with a prayer for quashing the FIR with respect to the petitioner, in Ramgarh P.S Case No.161 of 2005, corresponding to G.R No.858 of 2005, wherein the petitioner has been made accused along-with the other co-accused persons for the offence under Sections 218 / 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
3. The FIR was instituted by the respondent No.5, who was then posted as Inspector of Police-cum-Officer In-charge in Ramgarh Police Station. It is alleged that no FIR was lodged against the accused persons, by the members of the raiding team and the then S.I of Ramgarh Police Station, even though during a raid on 12.9.2003, they recovered 78 bags of wheat while being loaded on a Tata-407 Mini truck, parked in front of the floor mill of the co-accused, Bijay Kumar Agrawal. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was posted as Supply Inspector of Ramgarh Town Area, and he appears to be one of the members of the raiding party. It appears from the FIR that during the raid, the said Tata-407 Mini truck was seized and four persons were apprehended and were brought to Police Station. It is stated in the FIR that on the basis of the report of Block Supply Officer, Ramgarh, given on 13.9.2003 to the Officer In-charge of the police station, stating that there was no irregularity in procurement of the wheat and no offence under the Essential Commodities Act was made out, the Officer In-charge of the Police Station released the said truck as well as four persons, apprehended during the raid.
2Upon further investigation in the matter the FIR was lodged by the respondent No.5, against the persons involved in the alleged black-marketing of the wheat by forging documents, in which, the petitioner, who at the relevant time was posted as Supply Inspector of Ramgarh Town Area, has also been made accused along with the other accused persons, for the offence under Sections 218 / 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The FIR shows that no other member of the raiding party or any police officer was made accused in the case.
4. It is alleged in the FIR, that the said Bijay Kumar Agrawal had produced the receipts, showing the purchase of 80 bags of wheat and it was stated that the bags of wheat were being transported on a truck, bearing registration No. MP-26-5696, which suffered a break down, and accordingly, the bags of wheat were being loaded in the Tata-407 Mini truck, which were apprehended. This story was found to be doubtful and accordingly, the FIR was lodged, alleging that the receipts were forged and a false story was made out. It is also alleged in the FIR that that there was the involvement of the Block Supply Officer, Ramgarh, in the case, as he did not submit any report on 12.9.2003, thus giving the opportunity to the accused persons for obtaining forged documents. The petitioner, being posted as Supply Inspector, Ramgarh Town Area, has also been made an accused in the case, but in the entire FIR, no role of the petitioner is mentioned. Even the Block Supply Officer, Ramgarh, has not been made accused in the case, against whom there is allegation in the FIR, and it is stated that he was involved in the offence. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that no offence is made out against the petitioner, even if the entire facts in the FIR is accepted.
5. It may be stated that though the case was lodged in the year 2005 itself, the investigation of the case has not yet been completed and according to the learned counsel for the State, the case is still under investigation, which he has submitted on the basis of the case diary.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner either under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, or under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case for quashing the FIR.
7. Learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the respondent No.5, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer. However, learned counsel for the State could not point out anything even from the case diary, as to what was the role of the petitioner and it is submitted by the learned 3 counsel for the State that the investigation is still pending and accordingly, the role of the petitioner may be found during investigation.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that though the FIR has been lodged for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, which relates to the seizure of 78 bags of wheat, but in the entire FIR, there is no mention about the violation of any Control Order relating to wheat. A plain reading of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act clearly shows that for making out of an offence under this Section, there has to be a contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the said Act. In the entire FIR there is no allegation of contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the said Act.
9. In course of arguments also, learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out as to which order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act is alleged to be violated in the present case, rather learned counsel for the State, upon going through the case diary, admitted that in the supervision note, it finds mentioned that no offence is made out under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, rather in the supervision note it finds mentioned that the offence is made out under Sections 409, 420, 379, 411, 218, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, reads as follows :-
"218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.- Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
11. In the entire FIR, there is no allegation against the petitioner, being a public servant, to have framed any record or writing in a manner which he knew to be incorrect, and as such, the offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioner. Such allegation, if any, is specific against the Block Supply Officer, Ramgarh, and not against the petitioner, who admittedly was posted as Supply Inspector, Ramgarh Town Area. Indeed the Block Supply Officer, Ramgarh, has not been made an accused in this case.
412. This apart, in the entire FIR, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner, being the public servant, either to have committed any criminal breach of trust, or to have dishonestly received any stolen property, or to have committed any theft, or to have committed any cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of any property. As such, in my considered view, no offence is made out against the petitioner, even for the offences under Sections 409, 411, 420 or 379 of the Indian Penal Code, which as per the supervision note, is said to be made out in the case.
13. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that since no offence is made out on the basis of the statements made in the FIR against the petitioner, the continuance of the criminal case against the petitioner is a sheer abuse of the process of Court. As such, it is a fit case for quashing the FIR against the petitioner, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., so far as it relates to the petitioner, in order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice.
14. Accordingly, the FIR in Ramgarh P.S Case No.161 of 2005, corresponding to G.R No.858 of 2005, so far as it relates to the petitioner only, is hereby, quashed. Consequently, this application stands allowed.
(H. C. Mishra, J.) BS/