Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 December, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-26186-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 26186 of 2021
(MUKESH PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 14-12-2021
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sheetal Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated
19.11.2021 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondents no.5 and 6 whereby,
the direction has been issued to respondent no.3 to initiate the criminal
proceedings to create a ground for withdrawal of the shops of the petitioner
which has resulted into registration of two identical FIRs' against him. It is
argued that the petitioner is a office bearer of the co-operative society
registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. He is holding the post of a
salesman at a Fair Price Shop governed at Khamaria and he was performing
his duties with his utmost devotion and sincerity in the frame work of statute
since years. The aforesaid complaint has been made against the petitioner by
the respondent no.2 by a strong political intervention and on the basis of
which directions have been issued by respondent no.2 under the influence of
political pressure directing the respondent no.2 for registration of criminal
case against the petitioner.
It is argued that as per the Control Order, 2015 the registration of an
FIR has been prescribed as punishment and the punishment can be awarded
only in cases of violation of Clause 13 for quantity more than 10% of monthly
allocation or repetition of violation under the same Clause. The authorities
have not followed the guidelines and circulars and relevant Clauses of PDS
control order and has out rightly directed for registration of an FIR against
the petitioner.
It is pointed out that the punishment has been prescribed under the
Control Order, 2015 and before imposing the aforesaid punishment,
opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the delinquent employee
being a mandatory condition. It is argued that just to enhance the gravity of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2021.12.21 10:56:25 IST
2 WP-26186-2021
the offence, Section 420 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioner.
It is further pointed out that in identical circumstances, this court has
entertained the writ petitions and has granted interim relief to the petitioners,
one being W.P.No.14805/2021 in the case of Devi Ram Kushwaha and
Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others wherein, interim relief was granted on
11.08.2021. He has further placed reliance upon the order passed in the case
o f Bal Kishan Sen Vs. State of M.P. & Others passed in
W.P.No.10772/2021 dated 23.06.2021 prays for similar relief to be extended
to the petitioner.
Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
contentions and has argued that the order impugned is rightly been passed
and the same does not call for any interference in the present writ petition. It
is submitted that several complaints have been received against the
petitioner’s working and on an preliminary inquiry being made, the
offence is prima facie made out against the petitioner therefore, the FIR has
been registered against him. The petitioner is having a remedy to apply for an
anticipatory bail in the matters but without even applying for the bail, he has
directly approached this court by filing the present petition seeking prayer for
interim relief.
It is further submitted that several FIRs have been registered against
him wherein, the embezzlement of the food grains done by the petitioner is on
the higher side. The provisions of Clause 16 provides for punishment and
penalty and the powers have been given to the authorities for registration of
an FIR. The aforesaid aspect was dealt with by this court in the case of
Dinendra Prasad Pandey Vs. State of M.P. and others being
W.P.No.22550/2021 decided on 22.10.21 wherein placing reliance upon the
judgement passed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of
Nagendra Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. and others , being W.P.
No.9398/2021, this court has dismissed the writ petition holding that the
Signature Not Verified
SDO is having powers for directing for registration of an FIR in terms of
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2021.12.21 10:56:25 IST
3 WP-26186-2021
Clause 16 (2) of the Control Order, 2015. He has prayed for dismissal of the
writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On the perusal of the record, it is not disputed that several FIRs have
been registered against the petitioner pointing out the illegalities been
committed by him. The FIRs have been registered against him on the basis of
the preliminary inquiry and on the complaints being made by the authorities
against the petitioner. The petitioner was found to have been involved in
misappropriation and embezzlement of large quantity of food grains which
was required to be supplied to the beneficiaries by him. Clause 16 of the
Control Order, 2015 clearly provides for taking criminal action against the
employees like petitioner in case of embezzlement and irregularities. It is not a
case wherein the jurisdiction of the authorities was put to challenge by the
petitioner. It is a case where the petitioner has challenged the registration of an
FIR on the basis of the fact that no opportunity of hearing was granted to him
prior to registration of an FIR. It is a settled preposition of law that prior to
registration of an FIR no opportunity of hearing is required to be given to any
person. It is for the authorities to look into the matter and see whether a
prima facie case is made out against the employee or not. He has further
relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Arvind
Kumar Gautam Vs. State of M.P. and another passed in M.Cr.C.
No.13679/2019 dated 26.9.201 has held that there is no requirement of
providing any opportunity of hearing prior to directing for registration of an
FIR against the employees like petitioner. It was also a case of PDS Control
Order.
In such circumstances, no illegality appears to have been committed by
the authorities. The petition is meritless devoid of substance and is hereby
dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
Signature Not Verified
SAN JUDGE
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2021.12.21 10:56:25 IST
4 WP-26186-2021
Sha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2021.12.21 10:56:25 IST
