Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Kumar Sharma vs State Of M.P. on 13 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498
1 MCRC-16321-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 13th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16321 of 2020
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the First Information Report registered as Crime No. 62/2020 at Police Station Ater, District Bhind, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, along with quashment of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, are that on 23.04.2020, a written complaint was submitted at Police Station Ater by the complainant Ashwini Kumar Gonam, aged about 50 years, Committee Manager/Supervisor of Vrittakar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Pratapapura Branch, Ater alleging that during the period when Shivkumar Sharma (present petitioner) was posted as Assistant Manager of the said Cooperative Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498 2 MCRC-16321-2020 Society, he was simultaneously working as a seller at the Government Fair Price Shop, Pratapapura. During the period from August 2019 to March 2020, the accused collected sale proceeds of food grains from the Fair Price Shop but failed to deposit the said amount in the accounts of the Cooperative Society. Further, mandatory entries were not made from time to time in the official records and registers of the Society and its branch. Upon receipt of complaints and after preliminary verification, the allegations against accused Shivkumar Sharma were found to be prima facie correct, and consequently, he was placed under suspension. Despite suspension, the accused did not deposit the Government food grains, POS machine, and other official documents with the Society, and there existed a strong possibility of their misuse. It was further alleged that even after suspension, accused Shivkumar Sharma continued to distribute food grains at the Government Fair Price Shop, Pratapapura, without any authority or permission, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and the Cooperative Society and wrongful gain to himself. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act were registered. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the impugned FIR is the result of administrative and departmental differences. The FIR has been registered mechanically, without proper verification of facts and without appreciating the legal requirements necessary to constitute the alleged offences.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498 3 MCRC-16321-2020 It is further submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, the dispute remains purely civil and departmental in nature. The grievance pertains to alleged non-deposit of sale proceeds and non-maintenance of records, which may at best give rise to departmental or civil action and do not constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is further submitted that a sine qua non for attracting Section 409 IPC is entrustment of property in the capacity of a public servant and dishonest misappropriation thereof and the FIR is completely silent on any specific act of entrustment of Government property to the petitioner in his personal capacity. The petitioner, being a fair price shop dealer/employee of a cooperative society, does not fall within the definition of "public servant"
as provided under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. In the absence of this essential requirement, no offence under Section 409 IPC is made out.
It is further submitted that the FIR does not disclose the exact amount allegedly misappropriated, the dates of alleged misappropriation, or the specific manner in which any loss was caused either to the Cooperative Society or to the Government. Such vague and omnibus allegations cannot form the foundation of criminal prosecution.
It is further submitted that the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act have been invoked without any legal basis, as the FIR nowhere mentions which specific Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been violated. In the absence of a specific contravention of a notified order, prosecution under Section 7 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498
4 MCRC-16321-2020 Essential Commodities Act is not sustainable in law.
In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in MCRC No. 2967/2008 (Shri Mahesh Chourasiya vs. State of M.P.) on 11.10.2013, wherein under identical circumstances involving allegations against a fair price shop dealer under Sections 409 IPC and 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, this Court categorically held that unless violation of a specific Control Order is shown, no offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out. It was further held that in the absence of entrustment in the capacity of a public servant, the offence under Section 409 IPC cannot be sustained, and the FIR was quashed by applying the principles laid down in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
Learned counsel further submits that the allegation that the petitioner continued distribution of food grains even after suspension is bald and unsupported by any documentary or oral evidence. No seizure, inspection report, or witness statement has been cited to substantiate this allegation.
It is further submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case would amount to abuse of the process of law and would result in miscarriage of justice. The case squarely falls within the categories enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case, particularly where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498 5 MCRC-16321-2020 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the impugned FIR has been registered strictly in accordance with law on the basis of a written complaint and prima facie material disclosing cognizable offences. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and clearly reveal misappropriation of sale proceeds of food grains, non-deposit of Government property, and unauthorized distribution of essential commodities even after suspension, thereby causing loss to the Government and the Cooperative Society. The offences under Section 409 IPC and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act are prima facie made out, and the questions regarding entrustment, status of the petitioner, and alleged violation of control orders are all matters of evidence which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, the Court is required only to see whether the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and not to conduct a mini trial. The petition does not fall within the parameters laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), and therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon careful examination of the FIR, accompanying material, and the settled position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice, as a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the prosecution has failed to mention or prima facie establish violation of any Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498 6 MCRC-16321-2020 specific Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and it is a well-settled legal position that contravention of a particular order issued under Section 3 is a sine qua non for attracting the penal provisions under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In absence of such allegation, the basic ingredients of the offence are not made out. This principle has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the matters of Hema Bhadouriya vs. State of M.P., reported in 2008 (1) EFR 198, and Narottam Singh Tomer vs. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3882 of 2008, Banti Gupta vs. State of M.P., reported in 2016 Cri.L.J. 1384, and recently reaffirmed in M.Cr.C. No.750/2015 (Amrit Singh vs. State of M.P.) on 07.01.2026, wherein proceedings under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act were quashed on identical grounds. Relevant extract of the order dated 07.01.2026 reads as under:
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the FIR does not disclose violation of any specific Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and it is well settled that contravention of a particular order issued under Section 3 is a sine qua non for attracting the penal provisions of Section 7 of the Act. In absence of such allegation, the basic ingredients of the offence are not made out.
This Court, in Hema Bhadouriya vs. State of M.P. (supra), has categorically held that without mentioning the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498
7 MCRC-16321-2020 violated Control Order, an accused cannot be prosecuted under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. A similar view has been reiterated in Banti Gupta vs. State of M.P., reported in 2016 Cri.L.J. 1384.
Further, in Narottam Singh Tomer vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No. 3882 of 2008), this Court, relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, held that where no contravention of any order issued under Section 3 is disclosed, prosecution under Section 7 of the Act is liable to be quashed. Relevant extract of the aforesaid order reads as under:
7. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, which provides as under. :-
"7. Penalties. (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3-
(a) he shall be punishable
(i) in the case of any order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and
(ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:
[Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment. impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months;]
(b) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government;
(c) any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle.
vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498 8 MCRC-16321-2020 commodity shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited to the Government.
8. Thus, bare perusal of the Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, makes it crystal clear that when there is a violation of any "order"
regarding any essential commodity, then the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 may apply.
9. This Court in the matter of Hema Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2008(1) EFR 198, has held that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner regarding inspection of petrol pump without mentioning violation of any order under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Harayana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 laid down the principal of law enunciated in series of decisions relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and formulated the guidelines observing as under:-
"This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised-
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not pnma 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498 9 MCRC-16321-2020 of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not 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 a 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 a specified provisions in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
11. As noticed here in above it is not prima facie found that petitioner has violated any "Order" under section 3 the of Essential Commodities Act 1955 therefore he can not be punished under section 7 of the of Essential Commodities Act 1955. The present case is covered under the guidelines no.-1 of Bhajanlal's case(supra). Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
12. Consequently the petition is allowed. The criminal complaint pending before J.M.F.C. Ambah District Morena in case no. 269/08 and also F.I.R. registered at Crime No. 23/08 for the offence punishable under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955 is hereby quashed."
In the present case, even if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, no prima facie offence Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498 10 MCRC-16321-2020 under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioner. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in unnecessary harassment and would amount to abuse of the process of law. The case clearly falls within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal's case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice.
Accordingly, following the settled legal position as laid down in Hema Bhadouriya (supra), Banti Gupta (supra), and Narottam Singh Tomer (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
Consequently, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. The FIR registered at Crime No. 236/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the criminal case pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Bhind, in Case No. 515/2014 titled State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amritlal, are hereby quashed."
So far as the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prima facie establish the essential ingredients of entrustment of property to the petitioner in the capacity of a Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498 11 MCRC-16321-2020 public servant and dishonest misappropriation thereof. The petitioner, being a fair price shop dealer/employee of a cooperative society, does not fall within the definition of "public servant" as defined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the FIR does not disclose any specific act of entrustment of Government property to the petitioner in such capacity. In absence of these foundational requirements, prosecution under Section 409 IPC cannot be sustained. This view stands fortified by the judgment of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 2967/2008 (Mahesh Chourasiya vs. State of M.P.), wherein under similar circumstances involving a fair price shop dealer, proceedings under Sections 409 IPC and 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act were quashed.
It is also evident that the allegations made in the FIR are vague, omnibus, and devoid of material particulars such as exact quantity, dates, or manner of alleged misappropriation. Even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any cognizable offence. The present case, therefore, squarely falls within the categories enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal ( supra), particularly where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence.
In view of the foregoing discussion and applying the ratio laid down in M.Cr.C. No. 2967/2008 and M.Cr.C. No. 750/2015, this Court finds that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1498 12 MCRC-16321-2020 Criminal Procedure is allowed. The FIR registered as Crime No. 62/2020 at Police Station Ater, District Bhind, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as well as quashment of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:59:00 AM