LIYAKAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 3.5.2010, five drums of kerosene were stated to have been recovered from the house/possession of the petitioner-accused Liyakat. On the basis of aforesaid recovery, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR, bearing No.123 dated 6.5.2010, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Section 7/10/55 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the E.C.Act") by the police of Police Station, Sadar Panipat.

(2.) Aggrieved by the registration of criminal case, the petitioner preferred the instant petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to party faction and political rivalry. The alleged recovery of kerosene was from Inaam son of Shafi, Depot Holder of the village, which is clear from the police report (Annexure P3). The matter was inquired into by the Assistant Food & Supply Officer and petitioner was found innocent, by way of report (Annexure P4). It was also claimed that even the police did not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the indicated offence against the petitioner. On the strength of these grounds, the petitioner sought the quashment of the FIR (Annexure P2) in the manner depicted hereinbefore.

(3.) The respondent State of Haryana refuted the prayer of petitioner and filed its reply, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. It was alleged that although in the inquiry, the kerosene was found to be of Inaam Depot Holder, but Liyakat (petitioner) is also co-accused in this case. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply of the respondent and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that State has reiterated the allegations contained in the impugned FIR (Annexure P2). The factum of police report (Annexure P3) and enquiry report (Annexure P4) is not denied. However, it will not be out of place to mention here that the State has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.