CHANCHAL Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. Heard by consent of parties.

(2.) Applicants have approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R., registered against the Applicants vide C.R. No.342 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act alongwith Sections 420 , 406 , 407 , 188 , 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The father of the Applicant No.2, who is father-in-law of Applicant Nos. 1 and 3, is running a fair price shop. The shop is situated on the land, which is owned by the said Jaykumar and the present Applicants. In a raid conducted by the authority, it was found that, the said Jaykumar had committed certain malpractices which amounted to offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Subsequently, charges under I.P.C . also came to be added. However, perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that, the said offences are for the acts which are directly connected with running of the said fair price shop. Only ground on which the present Applicants are added as accused is that, they are co-owners of the land in question.