MAHABIR PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. B. Singh, J. This is petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C to quash the proceedings arising out of the First Information Report Annexure No. 1 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and directing the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the crime registered on the basis of that report.

(2.) MAHABIR Prasad petitioner No. 1 is the proprietor and Ayodhya Prasad Dubey petitioner No. 2 is the Munim of the Firm M/s MAHABIR Trading Company, Payagpur district Bahraich. The firm is whole sellor of food-grains, oil seeds and pulses and Commission Agent of food-grains, pulses etc. On 24-3-1988 at about 2 p. m. the premises of the firm were inspected by Shri Sarvesh Narain Gaur, Marketing Inspector Payagpur opposite party No. 2 along with some other Marketing Inspectors and members of the police force. MAHABIR Prasad petitioner No. 1 was not present at the shop. According to the first information report Ayodhya Prasad Dubey Munim petitioner No. (six) was present at the time of inspection but it has been disputed in the petition. The Marketing Inspector found shortage in the stock paddy, Khali and Alsi. According to the First Information Report the paddy was short by 11 bags, Khali was short by 2 bags, one quintal and 50 Kilograms in weight and Alsi was short by one bag 90 kilograms in weight. It was also alleged in the first information report that 356 quintals 40 kilograms maize was sold on 20-2-1988 but it was not shown in the Satti Bahi. Similarly Khali sold on 16-2-1988 and 9-3-1988 was not shown in the Satti Bahi of the firm. The petitioners alleged that there was no shortage in the stock as alleged in the first information report and relevant entries were made in the account books. It was also alleged in the first information report that the food grains, oil seeds and other articles were kept in the premises which were not provided in the licences granted to the firm. With regard to it, has been alleged in the petitioner that the petitioners had given intimation about it to the authorities concerned much before the inspection. According to the first information report, the proprietor and the Munim committed breach of the provisions of the U. P. Food Grains Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1976, U. P. Oil Seeds and Oil Seed Products Control Order, 1966 and U. P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977 and thereby an offence punishable under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities. Act. The petitioners contend that they did not commit any breach of the provisions of these Control Orders. It has also been pleaded by them in the petition that the Marketing Inspector had no right to inspect the premises and Ayodhya Prasad Dabay Munim who has been shown present in the first information report was not at the shop on account of his illness. The petitioners, therefore, contend that they did not commit any offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and the proceedings arising out of the first information report should be quashed and the petitioners may not be arrested.

(3.) IT has been held in Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (supra) that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C cannot quash first information report more so when the police had not even commenced the investigation and no proceeding is pending in any Court in pursuance of the said R I. R. In the other case State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh the High Court allowed the petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and quashed the first information report registered against the respondent and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof. In this connection the following observations were made by the Hori'ble Supreme Court:-- "the order of the High Court cannot be sustained because the police authorities are enjoined by law to register a case and conduct investigation whenever information is laid regarding the commission of cognizable offences. As such quashing of a first information report will amount to restraining the police authorities from performing the duties enjoined upon them by law. " IT has been further held in this case that; "the High Court has, however, not confined its scrutiny to the averments contained in the first information report but has traversed beyond and examined the case in the light of the contentions put forth by the respondents in their petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. By indulgence in such exercise the High Court has come to the conclusion that the second respondent Co-operative Society cannot be termed a dealer of the alleged adulterated fertilizer distributed to its members because there was no sale involved in the transaction, that for the same reason the second respondent Society was not bound to obtain a Registration Certificate for selling fertilizer and further more the alleged sale of adulterated fertilizer was itself open to serious doubt because of conflicting analysis reports issued by the Chemical Analyst regarding the fertilizer and hence the emergent position is that the first information report does not disclose the commission of cognizable offences Thus what the High Court has done is to go far beyond the contents of the first information report and enter into a discussion on the merits of the case before the Investigating Agency had conducted investigation and collected evidence. "