THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11273 OF 2010 DATED:29-11-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in F.I.R.No.157 of 2010 of Kothapet police station, East Godavri District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the records. 3. The 2nd respondent-Tahsisldar, Kothapeta sent a report to the Station House Officer, Kothapeta police station, stating as follows: “In continuation to this office reference 5th cited, I am to inform that Smt.Thoram Dhanalakshmi, dealer of F.P.shop No.35, Avidi village, Kothapeta mandal has violated the conditions under A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and the authorization of the dealer was suspended by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram in the reference 4th cited under A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 for the above lapses. I therefore request to file cheating case under Section 420 IPC against Smt.Thoram Dhanalakhmi, dealer of F.P.Shop No.35, Avidi village, Kothapeta mandal for diverting the commodity i.e. Kerosene Oil which is intended for public distribution”. 4. Based on the above report, police registered F.I.R.No.157 of 2010 under Section 420 IPC. Specific allegation in the report is that the petitioner violated the conditions under the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. It is not disclosed in the First Information Report as to how the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are attracted. It is not disputed that the similar First Information Report, registered against the other dealer of the fair price shop in the village for the offence under Section 420 IPC, was quashed by this Court. A copy of the order, dated 22-10-2010, in Crl.P.No.10372 of 2010 is also placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the proceedings in F.I.R.No.158 of 2010 against the other fair price shop dealer, similarly situated, was quashed on the ground that the allegation is vague and the same does not constitute any offence under Section 420 IPC. The case of the petitioner herein also stands on the same footing. 5. In the circumstances, in view of the orders passed earlier by this Court and having regard to the fact that the offence alleged does not attract the ingredients of Section 420 IPC, further proceedings in F.I.R.No.157 of 2010 are held unsustainable insofar as the offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned. The state is however at liberty to take necessary action against the petitioner under relevant provisions, including the Control Order, 2008, which is alleged to have been violated. 6. In the result, Criminal Petition is disposed of. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th November, 2010 Tsy