SB Crlmp No.1010/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1010/2010. Om Prakash Mehta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order : 25/10/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ J Shri G.S. Shekhawat for the petitioner. Shri Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for State. ****** BY THE COURT:- This criminal misc.petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that FIR No.7/2010 lodged with Police Station Kelwara, District Baran for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 be quashed. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that allegation in the FIR did not constitute any offence. The dispute is regarding alleged non-distribution of Wheat under the BPL Scheme for the months of February & March, 2009 in the quantity of 4.50 and 9.00 i.e. total 13.50 quintiles despite this it was received by the accused petitioner and he also did not duly enter the same in the concerned stock registers nor the same was produced by SB Crlmp No.1010/10. 2 him before the SDM Shahbad for verification. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact petitioner submitted an application to the SDM Shahbad requesting that the stock registers may be verified so that he can further distribute the Wheat under the Antodaya Scheme, on 5/2/2009. Thereafter, another application to the same effect was submitted by the petitioner before the SDM on 12/3/2009 followed by yet another application dated 13/3/2009. When nothing was done, petitioner submitted an application to the District Collector Baran on 20/4/2009 informing him that although petitioner has received supply of Wheat under the Antodaya and BPL Scheme for the months from February to March 2009 but SDM Shahbad has not verified the stock registers due to which he is not in a position to distribute the Wheat. Instead of verifying the stock registers, District Supply Officer, Baran vide order dated 23/4/2009 suspended license of the petitioner and appointed Shri Bhawani Shankar Mehta, fair price dealer of Sirsod Kalan as a temporary arrangement in his place. When petitioner came to know, he moved an application to the District Collector Baran on 12/5/2009 SB Crlmp No.1010/10. 3 requesting for disposal of stock of Wheat available with him and also submitting that appointment of Shri Bhawani Shankar Mehta was illegal. Similar application was submitted to the District Supply Officer, Baran on 4/6/2009 for passing necessary orders for disposal of stock of Wheat available with him. To cover up his fault, District Supply Officer, Baran lodged a first information report at Police Station Kelwara, Baran against the petitioner for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that in the light of this, the allegations contained in the FIR become hollow and baseless and thus, the FIR be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submits that if at all petitioner wants to submit all these material which have been produced before this Court, he should have requested the investigating agency rather than approaching this Court for quashment of the FIR. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is specific that instead of distributing the Wheat meant for Below Poverty Line under the scheme of Antodaya and BPL Scheme, the Wheat has been black marketed on higher rates. This was a serious SB Crlmp No.1010/10. 4 allegation which requires a thorough investigation. Thus, there can be no case for quashing of the FIR. Upon hearing learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perusing the material available on record, I find that on the parameters of guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal : AIR 1992 SC 604, no case for quashment of the FIR is made out in favour of the petitioner because it cannot be said that if the contents contained of the present case are accepted in its entirety, it did not constitute any offence requiring investigation. During investigation, however, if petitioner wants to rely on some material, he should be at liberty to place the same before the investigating agency. Without making any interference with the FIR, present petition is disposed of requiring petitioner to produce all those documents before the investigating agency, who shall look into the matter and enquire into the matter in the light thereof. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil SB Crlmp No.1010/10. 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.801/2010. IN S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1010/2010. Om Prakash Mehta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order : 25/10/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ J Shri G.S. Shekhawat for applicant-petitioner. Shri Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for State. ****** Consequent upon disposal of the main petition, this stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil