GOPAL KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 76 dated 2.7.2002, under Sections 406, 408 IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act registered at Police Station Sadar Moga and other proceedings arising therefrom. Pursuant to the notice, reply has been filed by the State.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the records.

(3.) MR . Bhalla states that on facts no case punishable under Sections 406 or Section 408 IPC of even under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioners for the reason that the property was in joint custody of the petitioners and the Markfed and therefore, it would at the most amount to breach of contract and not breach of trust. Even otherwise there is an arbitration clause in the agreement which can be enforced for the recovery of amount with regard to the shortage, if any. He then submits that the instant FIR is liable to be quashed on the principle of double jeopardy as it is settled law that no second FIR can be lodged for the same offence. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Bhalla submits that prior to the registration of the FIR No. 20 of 1998, which was registered on 25.2.1998, the second physical verification was already conducted by the Markfed officers on 30.6.1997. If they had found any shortage of the bags, this all could be brought in the said FIR, which reflects the shortage pointed out at the time of first physical verification. Registration of the instant case after the lapse of more than four years in July, 2002, that too on the same facts is sheer abuse of the process of the law.