'FIR Does Not Indicate Which Control Order Is Violated, Prosecution Not In Accordance With Law': MP HC Quashes Case Under Essential Commodities Act

Justice R.K. Shrivastava was dealing with an application under Section 482 CrPC, moved by the Applicant seeking directions of the Court to Quash the F.I.R. and further proceedings against him for offenses punishable under Section 3, 7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ("EC Act") and under Section 353, 186, 34 IPC.

The case of the Applicant was that the F.I.R. was registered by the Complainant owing to his hostilities towards him. He submitted that he could not be held guilty under Section 3, 7 of EC Act as the F.I.R. was silent about condition of Control Order violated by him. He further argued that Clause 11(5) of M.P. P.D.S. Control Order authorises only the the Collector to initiate action under EC Act. However, in his case, the Complainant got the F.I.R. registered at his own instance, without obtaining any permission from the Collector, which clearly amounted to abuse of process of law.

Placing his reliance on the decisions of the Court in Nitin s/o. Vasudev Udasi v. State of M.P. and in Banti Gupta v. State of M.P., the Applicant prayed for the direction of the Court to quash the F.I.R. registered against him and other consequential criminal proceedings.

Considering the submissions of the Applicant and the judgments relied upon by him, the Court observed that his case had merit-

The aforesaid judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are applicable in the present matter. In the present matter also, complainant has not got any prior permission from the concerning Collector, before registering the FIR or seizing the paddy. Impugned FIR registered by the petitioner at Police Station concerned was on his own instance. The impugned FIR does not indicate that which Control Order has been violated by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be punished u/S. 3/7 of EC Act and prosecution launched by the police against petitioner is not in accordance with law and deserves to be quashed.

With the aforesaid observation, the Court allowed the application and accordingly, the F.I.R. registered against the Applicant and the consequent criminal proceedings against him were quashed.

Case Title: Krishnapal Singh Kansana Vs. State of MP and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 72