Dr Anar Singh Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 754 MP

                                  -( 1 )-          MCRC No. 8917/2021



             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   BENCH AT GWALIOR

                               (Single Bench)

                     Misc. Cri. Case No. 8917/2021

Dr. Anar Singh Jadon                               ..... PETITIONER
                                    Versus
State of MP and another                          ..... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dheeraj Budholiya, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
           Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether approved for Reporting               :

Reserved on           :       02.03.2021

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 ORDER

(Passed on 16th March, 2021)

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 227/2020 at Police Station Kailaras, District Morena for the offences registered under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the present petitioner and other co-accused.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that on 8.6.2020 one written letter was submitted by the respondent No.2 to the Station Officer against the petitioner and other co-accused salesman Awdhesh Gaud, in the said letter it was mentioned that the fair price shop run by Maa Dhumawati Mahila Prathmik

-( 2 )- MCRC No. 8917/2021

Sahakari Bhandar sub-centre Gastoi, Code No. 206025 was inspected and it was found that being Director of society petitioner and salesman Awdhesh Gaud had shown the distribution in POS machine but actually they did not distribute the food article to the eligible beneficiaries which is in violation of the MP PDS Order 2015, punishable under Section 3/7 of EC Act 1955 for which, FIR has been registered at Crime No. 227/2020 P.S. Kailaras, District Morena.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the crime registered against him and he has falsely been implicated in the matter. It is submitted that without conducting any inquiry by respondent No.2 the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR only on the basis of one panchnama wherein it was mentioned that salesman of fair price shop had shown the distribution and finger prints impression in POS Machine but the beneficiary had never got the food article from the fair price shop and when the complaint was made to the owner of shop, the petitioner denied to give the food article to beneficiaries. No document has been submitted by respondent No.2 to the police authority showing that the petitioner is Director of the society. It is also submitted that without following the procedure under PDS Order 2015 FIR has been registered against the present petitioner. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments in Shyam Sundar vs. State of Haryana, 1990 (1) EFR P.No.1; Hema Bhadoriya vs. State of MP, 2008 (1) EFR P.No. 198; and, Chandra Prakash Jain vs. State of MP and Dharmendra Mishra vs. State of MP in Writ Petitions No. 10240/2020 and 21225/2019.

-( 3 )- MCRC No. 8917/2021

4. Per Contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the submissions and has submitted that there is a special provision with regard to appeal under Clause 15 of the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 and without availing the aforesaid remedy the petitioner has approached this Court. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable at this stage.

5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.

6. In the present case offence has been registered under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The allegation is in respect of not distributing the food article to the eligible beneficiaries which is in violation of MP PDS Order 2015. Therefore, considering the nature of offence which is punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, coupled with the fact that there is special provision of appeal under Clause 15 of the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, it is apparent that the petitioner has a remedy available of filing appeal against the impugned action, instead he has directly approached this Court under Section 482 of CrPC. Till date the petitioner has not disclosed the fact as to whether any appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 or not. As the aforesaid appellate forum is available to the petitioner, he may, if so advised, take recourse of the aforesaid forum.

7. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed for want of maintainability.

                                                           (Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
(yog)                                                                 Judge.


                                    YOGESH VERMA
                                    2021.03.16
                 VALSALA
                 VASUDEVAN
                 2018.10.26
                 15:14:29 -07'00'
                                    17:12:16 +05'30'