SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Harish Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 8 February, 2018

CRM-M-2878-2015 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-2878-2015 (OM)
Date of decision: 08.02.2018

Harish Kumar
… Petitioner
Vs.

State of Punjab and another
… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Atinder Pal Singh Jaurkian, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate for
Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

*******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.86 dated

22.08.2014 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’),

registered at Police Station Budhlada, District Mansa and the subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was got

registered by Inspector Raj Mittal, PUNGRAIN, Budhlada with the allegations

that the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s Friends Rice Mill, Budhlada was

allotted the job of rice milling in the year 2013-14. At the time of physical

verification, it was found that about 2495 bags (873.25 qtls) of paddy were

short in the premises of the rice mill, value of which is about Rs.11.75 lacs.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that subsequently, the petitioner has

1 of 4
26-02-2018 02:51:32 :::
CRM-M-2878-2015 -2-

cleared the outstanding paddy after rice milling to the PUNGRAIN, as the

period for this purpose was extended upto September 2014 and subsequent to

registration of the FIR, the entire outstanding milled rice towards the petitioner

has already been cleared. It is thus submitted that FIR has been registered in a

haste without waiting the expiry of period, during which the petitioner was

authorized to retain the custom milled rice and hand over the same to

PUNGRAIN. It is further submitted that the sole basis of registration of FIR

was a physical verification report.

Reply by way of affidavit of District Manager, PUNGRAIN,

Mansa on behalf of respondents No.1 2 has already been filed and in para 4

of the preliminary submissions, it is stated that the last date of milling was

30.06.2013 as per the agreement and since the miller was still to deposit 213.46

qtls of rice, the last date for receipt of rice was extended by FCI upto September

2014 and the remaining rice was delivered by the concerned miller. In para 3 of

this reply on merits, it is stated as under: –

“That the contents of this para of application are admitted to the

extent that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of paddy

after milling. But it is relevant to clarify that even upto last date of

milling i.e. 30.06.2013 as per the agreement between the miller

and the agency, the miller was still to deposit the 213.46 qtls of

rice. But subsequently last date for the receipt of rice was extended

by the FCI so only in September 2014 the remaining rice was

deposited by the concerned miller. Rest of the contents of this para

are denied as wrong as in the month of January 2014, 13623 bags

of paddy were still standing balance against the miller that should

be lying stored in the premises of mill. But it is important to

2 of 4
26-02-2018 02:51:33 :::
CRM-M-2878-2015 -3-

mention here that there were only 10908 bags of paddy available

at the time of physical verification conducted on 03.02.2014 and

shortage of 2715 bags of paddy at that time was there and that

was dishonestly misappropriated. The report of physical

verification conducted on 03.02.2014 is annexed as Annexure

R-5.”

It is admitted by respondents No.1 2 that upto the extended

period i.e. September 2014, the petitioner has cleared the entire outstanding

milled rice to the respondents.

Separate reply by way of affidavit of SI/SHO, Police Station

Budhlada, District Mansa has been filed and in para 3 of this reply, it is stated

as under: –

“That it is worth to mention that after receipt of the copy of this

petition, a request was made to the District Manager, PUNGRAIN,

Mansa to know the current status. The District Manager, vide its

letter No.A-2-2017/7565 dated 12.12.2017 mentioned that the

petitioner has deposited the entire provisional milling bill amount

of paddy after milling by adjusting Rs.57800/- from levy security

on 12.11.2014. The copy of the letter is Annexure R-1.”

In view of the letter dated 12.12.2017 issued by District Manager,

PUNGRAIN, Mansa to the Investigating Officer, it is clarified that the

petitioner has deposited the entire provisional milling bill amount of the paddy

by adjusting Rs.57800/-.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions from

Inspector Raj Mittal, PUNGRAIN, Mansa as well learned State counsel, on

instructions from HC Jagdev Singh, have not disputed the factual position and

3 of 4
26-02-2018 02:51:33 :::
CRM-M-2878-2015 -4-

submitted that they have no objection in case the present FIR is quashed.

The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal

1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, has held that where the

uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence

collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence

against the accused, the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to

prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has cleared all the outstanding

paddy/its cost during the extended period granted by FCI i.e. upto September

2014, the FIR, which has been registered prior thereto during subsistence of the

agreement between the petitioner and PUNGRAIN, was a premature action of

the respondents and therefore, this petition is allowed and FIR No.86 dated

22.08.2014 under Section 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Budhlada,

District Mansa and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby

quashed qua the petitioner.

[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
08.02.2018 JUDGE
vishnu

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
26-02-2018 02:51:33 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh