RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code of Criminal Procedure' in short) wherein Petitioner has challenged order dated 3.12.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sirsa whereby the charge against the Petitioner has been framed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short)

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question was liable to be quashed as only a complaint under the Insecticides Act 1968 could have been filed in this case. Hence, the charge could not have been framed against the Petitioner under Section 420 IPC. In support of his arguments learned Counsel has placed reliance on Jatinder Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab,2008 2 FAC 437, S.C. Sharma and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.,2003 1 RecCriR 788, Piyara Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana,2002 3 RecCriR 290 and Padam Bansal v. State of Haryana,2005 4 RecCriR 68. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

(3.) In the present case, a perusal of the FIR reveals that a complaint was moved against Om Parkash that he was selling duplicate insecticides. When the premises of Om Parkash were raided, he stated that he purchased insecticides from Padam Bansal. On this basis, FIR was sought to be registered against Om Parkash Sharma and Padam Bansal. However, during investigation, the name of Padam Bansal was dropped as Om Parkash Sharma again made a statement during investigation that he was preparing the duplicate insecticides with the help of the Petitioner. Since the offence alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner falls within the purview of the Act, the procedure as enunciated in the Act for initiation of Criminal Proceedings against the guilty was liable to be followed.