Gurjant Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR No. 124 dated 23.07.2005 u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Sections 420, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Bhiwanigarh, District Sangrur and for quashing the challan dated 08.01.2008.

The matter was adjourned on the request of learned Counsel for the Petitioners on 23.12.2009. Thereafter, on similar request, the matter was adjourned for 06.01.2010, 23.02.2010, 10.03.2010, 30.04.2010, 17.09.2010, 08.11.2010, 17.01.2011 and again for 27.04.2011. The request for adjournment was once again accepted on 27.04.2011 and it was directed to be listed for hearing on the very next day i.e on 28.04.2011. Today, no one is present on behalf of the Petitioners either to make request or argue. The matter being of the year 2008, the same cannot be kept pending for no rhyme or reason.

The present petition for quashing of the FIR No. 124 dated 23.07.2005 u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Sections 420, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Bhiwanigarh, District Sangrur and for quashing the challan dated 08.01.2008 has been filed on the ground that the police without verifying the facts and without waiting the tanker to reach at Bhiwanigarh, registered the FIR. Thereafter, the Petitioner was found innocent and the police had prepared the final investigation report dated 13.01.2006 u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of FIR but subsequently as the Petitioners did not oblige the police, the police with mala fide intention, in order to teach the Petitioners a lesson, manufactured the challan dated 08.01.2008 after two years from the cancellation report.

Secondly, the police had found everything in order but still they went on to register the FIR. It is further contended that the police was not empowered to reinvestigate/further investigate the matter once it has opted to submit the cancellation report. Therefore, the filing of the challan after two years of having filed the cancellation report was misuse of process of law.

Taking up the first ground raised in the petition that once the prosecution had opted for the cancellation report, the challan could not have been filed after two years, is not entirely correct. As per para 4 of the reply filed by the Respondent-State, the cancellation report was prepared in this case by the then S.H.O., Police Station Bhawanigarh and submitted before the higher officers for verification. The matter was examined at various levels. The cancellation report was not approved. The Senior Superintendent of Police did not agree with it and after finding that prima facie offence had been committed, the challan against the accused was presented. Accused Jiwan Kumar was found to innocent, whereas, prima facie offence was found to be committed by the present Petitioners. Thus, no fault can be found with the filing of the challan.

The allegations in the present case are serious. Inspector Anil Kumar along with co-officials visited the petrol pump of Bhiwani Oil Co. Bhawanigarh situated at Retgarh Ramgarh road and took nine bottles containing 750 ml. diesel each, as sample from the three tankers which were under the earth. As per the allegations, the accused mixed some kerosene oil and some chemicals in the kerosene oil and used to sell in the black market as diesel or to the innocent persons without any licence or permission. During investigation, the said case was duly established.

Charges have already been framed against the present Petitioners and the prosecution evidence is being recorded.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and Ors. reported as 2008(4) CRC ) 640 in para 10, held as under:

After analysing the terminology used in the three pairs of sections it was held that despite the difference there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of a prima facie case is to be applied.

The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. As rightly submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant, even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. That being so, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.