HARBANS SINGH KHIPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 7 dated 5.2.1989 P.S. Budhlada under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the subsequent proceedings initiated thereon.

(2.) PETITIONERS are running a gas agency for the supply of L.P.G. cylinders at Budhlada, under the name and style of M/s. Indira Gas Centre. One Lal Singh resident of village Budhlada Mandi got an FIR No. 7 dated 5.2.1989 registered against the petitioners on the allegations that he had applied for a gas connection. When he received a letter for getting the said connection, he was given receipt without date and was insisted upon to purchase a hot-plate amounting to Rs. 975/- from the gas agency. He requested that he should not be compelled to purchase the same from the gas agency. Lal Singh also alleged that the petitioners charged a sum of Rs. 1,575/- from him towards security of the gas cylinder, regulator, price of hot-plate, plus the cost of L.P.G. cylinder. The Investigating Agency, on investigation of the complaint, found that Lal Singh had paid only a sum of Rs. 600/- as security for cylinder, regulator, plus cost of rubber-tube, gas etc. but he took the hot-plate on the assurance that he will pay the price of the said hot-plate later on. But since, he did not make the payment of the hot-plate, a dispute arose between the parties. The Investigating Agency also found that one Jangiri Lal, S.I./800, took a bribe of Rs. 8,000/- from Baldev Singh, Sarpanch of Village Palli and Jangiri Lal was trying to involve Baldev Singh in a false case. Harbans Singh Khipal was helping Baldev Singh, Sarpanch. Some of the leading persons of the Budhlada town were trying to get the gas agency, but failed in doing so and it was because of revengeful bent of mind that they instigated Lal Singh to file a compliant against the Indira Gas Agency. It has also come on record that petitioner No. 2 is handicapped person. Accordingly, a report was submitted for cancellation of the F.I.R. Before the report could be put up before the Court, Lal Singh filed a protest petition in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa. In the protest petition, a prayer was made for summoning the police file, police diary and cancellation report made by the police. After notice to the State and on going through the entire file, the Judicial Magistrate vide his detailed order dated 26.7.1990 dismissed the protest petition, with the finding that "the minute scrutinization of the police diary on the file leads to the conclusion that the complainant Lal Singh leading to preparation of the case against the accused persons under Section 7 of Act was politically motivated and has rightly been found false and baseless. So the investigating agency has rightly made the investigating report of the FIR making mention of untraced case. So, in my opinion, no interference in the investigation is called for. The protest petition is dismissed. Case is agreed to be reported as untraced. Police diary be returned to the concerned official after expire of the period of appeal/revision, if any. File be consigned to the record-room. Feeling aggrieved of this order, Lal Singh filed a revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, who vide order dated 11.12.1992 accepted the revision petition and ordered the investigating agency to produce challan against the accused in the proper Court. The present petition has now been filed by the petitioners for quashing of order of Additional Sessions Judge, and also the F.I.R.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition deserves to succeed. It has come on record on the basis of F.I.R,. Superintendent of Police (sic), made an enquiry into the allegations and on enquiry, rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case at the instance of persons who were interested in getting this gas agency. As a matter of fact, Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda, had asked the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mansa, to conduct enquiry into the matter. Petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 were summoned by the Executive Magistrate who inquired into the allegations and on enquiry, he concluded that petitioners had neither over-charged Lal Singh nor his gas connecting was withheld and the amount paid by Lal Singh was on account of gas cylinder and regulator. In fact there was some dispute between the parties with regard to non-payment of hot-plate (Chullah). In my view the trial Court, on consideration of material on the police-file, rightly dismissed the protest petition filed by Lal Singh. The Additional Sessions Judge without going deep into the matter, allowed the petition. The order of Additional Sessions Judge is not a speaking order, giving no indication as to what reasons prevailed upon him for giving a direction to the prosecution to put up challan against the petitioners. The judgment in Bhagwant Singh's case (supra), cited by counsel, is of no help to the respondent, inasmuch as it only lays down that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2) of Section 173, Cr.P.C. decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. But in the present case, the informant himself filed the protest petition and it was on his petition that the Magistrate ordered for dropping of the proceedings.