Crl. Misc. No. 14791-M of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.14791-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.8.2008 Vinod Kumar and Anr. .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR No. 26 dated 28.10.2005 registered under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 10, 55 of Essential Commodities Act/Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, at Police Station, SVB, Ambala and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The relevant portion of the FIR is as under:- “Sir, it is submitted that in Shahbad on the Babain Road, District Kurukshetra near Kharindwa a factory preparing deshi ghee in the name of Raj Foods is running from the last 1 ½ years. Its owner is Raj Kumar Gupta and his son Gaurav Gupta, Chemist Vinod Kumar and Accountant Sanjiv Kumar in connivance with each other by mixing certain items prepared adulterated deshi ghee and powder and selling it by saying original fresh deshi ghee ESHAN in the market. Material is being sold in the market without bills due to which Govt. is suffering huge loss and else than the general public life is being made scape-goat. Yesterday night, they have prepared Crl. Misc. No. 14791-M of 2008 2 such type of material, if raid is conducted at the spot. The material can be recovered. Legal action be taken against them.” Counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioner no. 1 is the Chemist whereas petitioner no. 2 is the Accountant. It is further submitted that the owner of the factory Raj Kumar Gupta and his son Gaurav Gupta had earlier filed Crl. Misc. No. 22829-M of 2006 titled as Raj Kumar Gupta & Anr. versus State of Haryana for quashing of the aforesaid FIR., which has been allowed by this Court on 2nd April, 2008 (Annexure P-2). It is further submitted that since the FIR against the owner of the factory, who is the main accused, has already been quashed, the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom is an abuse of the process of law, if it is allowed to be continued against the present petitioners. Counsel for the State could not defend the action of the prosecution, in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the aforesaid case. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the present petition may be allowed in terms of the order passed in Crl. Misc. No. 22829-M of 2006 decided on 2.4.2008. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present petition is allowed in terms of the decision rendered in Crl. Misc. No. 22829-M of 2006 decided on 2.4.2008. August 4, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) rekha Judge