Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madan Mohan Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2022

Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                                  1
                                            M.Cr.C. No. 14510/2022
                               (Madan Mohan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.)

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   BENCH AT GWALIOR

                         SINGLE BENCH:


         Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 14510/2022
                       Madan Mohan Tiwari
                                 Vs.
                           State of M.P.
                      ********************
CORAM

         Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                      ********************
Appearance

      Shri Sanjay Bahirani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri    Nitin   Goyal,    learned    Panel   Lawyer   for   the

respondent/State.

                      ********************
Reserved on                       : 06/04/2022
Whether approved for reporting : ___/___


                               ORDER

(Passed on 08/04/2022)

Petitioner has come up with the present petition under

Section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR registered vide Crime

No.754 of 2020 at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior for

offences punishable u/S. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act [in

short ''EC Act''] and Sections 353, 186, 34 of IPC and other

M.Cr.C. No. 14510/2022 (Madan Mohan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.)

consequential criminal proceedings initiated in connection with

aforesaid Crime.

2. Facts giving rise to present petition, in brief, are that on

21/12/2020, the District Marketing Officer, namely, Vivek Tiwari

submitted a written complaint at Police Station Morar alleging

therein that at around 01:00 pm, trucks bearing registration

Nos.UP75AT3899, UP75AT6878 and MP07HB8049 were

standing with loaded paddy under the bridge of Badagaon. The

tags were being fixed by means of staplers by the truck drivers. On

enquiry, the drivers of aforesaid trucks disclosed that paddy was

being transported from Itawa (UP) and purchased the same from

M/s. Dhanraj & Company vide Bilty nos.1076 & 1078 and by

M/s. OM Sairam Transport, the paddy ought to be unloaded at

Gwalior, but during the inspection, the driver of truck bearing

registration No.UP75AT6878 driven away along with the

documents from the spot. Meanwhile, one car bearing registration

No.MP30C7228 was parked between the trucks and it is alleged

that co-accused Krishnapal Singh Kansana has snatched the

documents from the complainant and torn the same and thereafter,

the same were collected by the Civil Supply Officer and petitioner

tried to release the aforesaid trucks. Statements of one of truck

drivers, namely, Somesh Yadav were recorded. Thereafter, a

written complaint was filed by District Marketing Officer, Vivek

Tiwari and an offence was registered at Police Station Morar for

M.Cr.C. No. 14510/2022 (Madan Mohan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.)

offence under Section 3/7 of the EC Act vide Crime No.754 of

2020 against the petitioner and other co-accused and during the

enquiry, Sections 353, 186, 34 of IPC were also added. Hence, this

petition for quashing of aforesaid FIR and all consequential

proceedings flowing from it.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner has no connection with the crime registered against him.

It is further contended that offence is registered against petitioner

under Section 3/7 of EC Act but paddy has already been excluded

from list of essential commodities in the year 1992 by the

Government and in absence of particular violation of Control

Order, the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner is a clear

abuse of process of law. In support of contention, counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon the order dated 17th of January, 2019

passed by Indore Bench of this Court in the matter of Nitin s/o.

Vasudev Udasi vs. State of MP [MCRC 24128 of 2018] in which

matter, the prosecution launched by police against petitioner

therein, is not in accordance with law and quashed the FIR and

other subsequent criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted

that present petitioner cannot be held guilty for offence under

Section 3/7 of EC Act as from perusal of FIR, it reflects that it is

silent about condition of Control Order, which has been violated

by the petitioner; therefore, prima facie, it does not appear that

petitioner has violated or contravened any order under Section 3/7

M.Cr.C. No. 14510/2022 (Madan Mohan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.)

of the EC Act. It is further contended that Clause 11(5) of MPPDS

Control Order provides that the Collector is only authorized to

initiate action under the EC Act if there is any violation of PDS

Order or Central Order. In the present matter, the complainant

without obtaining any permission from the concerning Collector

before registering FIR or for seizing the paddy with truck, on his

own instance, clearly amounts to abuse of process of law.

Violation of any Control Order has not been expressly shown by

the police in the FIR and it is not clear which Control Order has

actually been violated by petitioner. Therefore, the prosecution

launched against the petitioner as well as investigation is illegal

and unauthorized. It is further contended that the provisions of

initiation of confiscation proceedings and issuance of show cause

notice before confiscation of essential commodity have been made

in Section 6-A and 6-B of the EC Act but the Collector has not

followed the aforesaid provisions and an order of confiscation has

been passed by which, the same is illegal as per the catena of

decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court. It is

further submitted that in similarly situated matters i.e. Krishnapal

Singh Kansana Vs. State of MP & Another [MCRC No. 45489

of 2021] and Shivpratap Singh Vs. State of MP [MCRC 47376

of 2021] this Court has quashed FIR and other criminal

proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned FIR and

other consequential criminal proceedings initiated thereof, against

M.Cr.C. No. 14510/2022 (Madan Mohan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.)

the present petitioner are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed

the prayer of petitioner and submitted that petitioner tried to

release the seized trucks and in the said truck, paddy was

unauthorizedly transporting and the driver of the truck in question

ran away along with documents from the spot while an inspection

was made by the complainant and on the basis of statements of

one of the drivers of truck, the complaint has lodged the impugned

FIR against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. Hence,

prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5. Heard counsel for parties and perused documents available

on record.

6. Section 7 of the EC Act provides that the person

contravenes any order made under Section 3 denotes that penalties

can be imposed only when Section 3 of the EC Act is violated.

Provision of Section 7 of EC Act is reproduced as under:-

Section 7 Penalties (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3- (a) he shall be punishable (i) in the case of any order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine; (provided that the

M.Cr.C. No. 14510/2022 (Madan Mohan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.)

Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months;

(b) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government.

(c) any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the commodity shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited to the Government.

7. In the light of provisions of EC Act as well as on perusal of

impugned FIR and other materials collected by police, it is

apparent that in the present matter, complainant has not got any

prior permission from concerning Collector, before registering the

FIR or seizing the truck with paddy. The impugned FIR registered

at Police Station concerned was on the own instance of

complainant. The impugned FIR does not indicate that which

Control Order has been violated by petitioner. Under these

circumstances, petitioner cannot be punished u/S. 3/7 of the EC

Act and the prosecution launched by police against petitioner is

not in accordance with law and deserves to be quashed. The

contents of impugned FIR do not show that offence under Sections