Shri Ambuj Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav - Government Advocate for the respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This M.Cr.C. having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is Branch
Manager at MP Warehousing and Logistics Corporation Branch Bankhedi,
Maccherakalan, Samnapur District Narmadapuram. On 09.04.2025, 300 bags of
moong dal were recovered being transported in truck bearing No. MP-17-HH-1048
at a distance of 4 kms from the warehouse. It is urged that driver of the aforesaid
vehicle was one Jeevan Lal and his statement was recorded by police and he
admitted in his statement that on account of shortage of petrol, he had sold some
bags of moong dal. Aforesaid moong dal is not of petitioner's godown. When writ
petition was filed for supurdagi of aforesaid vehicle, then FIR was registered on
21.06.2025 with respect to incident dated 09.04.2025. It is also urged that 2665
bags of Moong Dal were to be delivered. Delivery order of aforesaid is Annexure
A/4 but on account of some mistake, online entry was made with respect to 2600
bags of moong dal instead of 2665 bags. For correction of aforesaid mistake,
petitioner submitted application before Regional Manager MP Warehousing and
Logistics Corporation Branch, District Narmadapuram on 11.04.2025 (Annexure
A/6). Allegation of 65 sacks of Moong Dal has been leveled against the petitioner
but in aforesaid truck, 300 sacks of Moong Dal have been found.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that inquiry was
conducted by District Marketing Officer, Narmadapuram and it is evident from
aforesaid report that after delivery of 2665 bags of moong dal reaming quantity of
moong dal, at the warehouse, was 2993 quintal. Thus, as per stock register, there is
no shortage of moong dal. As per Anneuxre A/2, 635 and 600 bags of moong dal
were received. It is also urged that as per annexure A/11, report prepared by the
Tehsildar Bankhedi with respect to seizure of aforesaid truck, moong dal, in
aforesaid truck, was not loaded from petitioner's warehouse. Thus, there is
nothing on record that the moong dal recovered from aforesaid vehicle belongs to
the warehouse of which present applicant is Branch Manager. Prima facie, no
offence under Sections 3(5), 316(5) and 318(4) of BNS has been committed by the
applicant. Bare perusal of the FIR as well as statement recorded by the police meet
it is abundantly clear that no offence has been committed by the present applicant
but he is made accused on the basis of some error committed by computer operator.
Basic ingredients constituting under Section 3(5), 316(5) and 318(4) of BNS are
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is pertinent to
mention here that there was a note from the vehicle driver who has taken the bags
from the warehouse which very much clears the factum of the missing sacks as
from their receiving it is very much evident that all 2665 sacks were loaded in the
truck but the same factum has not been considered and lodged a false case against
the present applicant and the same FIR seems to be arbitrary in nature and deserves
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 09/04/2025, the
Kuber Agricom Co. made payment for 2665 sacks from godown 6 weighing
1276.47 quintals and 2455 sacks from godown No. 7 weighing 1205.19 quintal
(totoal-5120 sacks weighing 2481.66 quintals). Thereafter, the left over sacks of
moong dal were recorded to be 3851 sacks from godown No. 6 weighing 1997.64
quintals and 1594 sacks from godown No. 7 weighing 995.46 quintals (total-5445
sacks weighing 2993.1 quintal), by the Branch Manager, in the stock register. The
same stats and figures were verified by the MARFED's District Officer in his letter
issued to the Branch Manager Macchera Kala & Kuber Agricom India Limited, on
24/04/2025 and the same factum makes it clear that no offence has been committed
by the present applicant rather he has been falsely implicated merely on the basis
of the wrong entry made by the computer operator. The Copy of the letter No. 57
issued by the MARKFED's District Officer and the other documents showing the
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was
Godown No.6 in Machchera Kala and MARKFED used to keep Moong purchased
by Corporation. Kuber Agricom (India Private Limited) purchased 4466.50
quintals of Moong in auction from MARKFED through GodownNo.6, Macchera
Kala on 4.4.2025. Thereafter, Kuber Agricom authorized Balram, Surygyani &
Hoshiyar Singh to receive the delivery of aforesaid Moong. On 9.4.2025, 2665
bags of Moong were loaded in four trucks from Godown No.6., Machchera Kala.
When on 9.4.205, truck bearing numberMP-17-HH-1048 was stopped and checked
at Pipraiya Tiraha, Narmadapura, it was found that there was 300 bags/sacks of
Moong and driver/owner of therefore said truck was having no papers with respect
to purchase of aforesaid Moong. Later on, statement of owner/driver was recorded
and he stated that he has purchased the aforesaid Moong from some other trucks
and it was sold by them for purchasing diesel. After seizure of truck, owner-cum-
driver filed an application before JMFC for releasing truck on Superdginama but it
was dismissed. Thereafter, Jeevan Mehra, owner of the truck filed
WPNo.19701/2025 before this Court for releasing the truck and this Court after
allowing the writ petition directed the truck along with Moong of 300bags/sacks to
be released in favour of Jeevan Mehra, vide order dated23.06.2025. Before passing
of aforesaid order by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.06.2025, FIR was
registered against the present applicant on the ground that in enquiry, it was found
purchased 2665 bags of Moong but operator in inadvertently made an entry of only
2600 bags of Moong and said entry was corrected on 11.4.2025. It is also urged
that FIR has been registered after two months. Delay in lodging the FIR has not
been explained. It is also urged that present case stands squarely covered under 7
categories laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana & Ors.
Vs. Bhajan Lal &Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Hence, petition filed by the
petitioner be allowed and FIR bearing crime No. 213/2025 and all consequential
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in inquiry, 63 bags of
moong dal were found short in godown No. 6 and in godown No. 7, 4 bags were
found extra. It is urged that it was also found that CCTV camera was not working.
As per statement of Raj Kumar (guard), truck bearing No. MP-17-HH-1048
arrived empty at the warehouse and the aforesaid truck left godown after having
been loaded with moong dal bags. In view of inquiry report, no case for quashment
of FIR is made out. Therefore, he prayed that petition filed by the petitioner be
9. Heard. Perused the record of the case.
10. Before proceeding further and examining the case on merits, it would
be appropriate to refer and reproduce the contents of FIR which are as under:-
"eS Fkkuk cu[ksM+h esa lgk;d mifujh{kd ds in ij inLFk gwaA
vkt fnukad 21-06-2025 dks esjh M;wVh ukbZV vkfQlj ds :i esa 21-00 cs ls
lqcg 9-00 cs rd FkhA M;wVh ds nkSjku eizosykdk {kS=h; dk;kZy; ueZnkiqje
ds {kSf=; izca/kd vrqy lksjVs firk okeujko lksjVs }kjk Fkkus ij mifLFkr
gksdj Fkkuk izHkkjh cu[ksMh ds uke ij 'kk[kk eNsjkdykWa ds xksnkeksa ls ewax
dh voS/k fudklh ,oa xksnkeksa esa Hk.Mkfjr eawx Lda/k ds de ik;s x;s cksjksa ds
laca/k esas iqfyl izkFkfedh ntZ djk;s tkus gsrq ,d fyf[kr vkosnu izLrqr
fd;k ftldks Fkkuk ds vken jftLVj ij vkod dza- 186@25 fnukad 21-04-
2025 ij vken fy;k tkdj vkjksihx.k 1- 'kSys"k ikfVy firk uanyky
ikfVy] mez 47 lky] fuoklh 'kkldh; vkoklh; ifjlj d`f"k foHkkx]
flykjh pkSjkgk fiifj;k 2- thouy esgjk firk gfjflag esgjk mez 32 lky
fuoklh fryd okMZ fiifj;k dk d`R; izFke n`"V;k /kkjk 316¼5½] 318¼4½] 3¼5½
ch-,u-,l- esa ik;k tkus ls vijk/k iathc) fd;k x;kA mDr vkosnu
gLotsy gS %& izfr] Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn;] iqfyl Fkkuk cu[ksM+h ¼e-iz-½
fo"k; %& 'kk[kk eNsjkdykWa ds xksnkeksa ls ewax dh voS/k fudklh ,oa xksnkeksa esa
Hk.Mkfjr eawx Lda/k ds de ik;s x;s cksjksa ds laca/k esas iqfyl izkFkfedh ntZ
djk;s tkus ckcr~ A lUnHkZ%&1- {kS=h; izca/kd ueZnkiqje dk tkWp izfrosnu
i= dzekad 99 fnukad 11-04-2025] 2- eq[;ky; tkap izfrosnu fnukad 19-04-
2025- 3- eq[;ky; dk i= dzekad 505 fnukad 24-04-2025] 4- dzekad@
eizosykdk@ okf.kT;&04@ 2025&26@1911 fnukad 21-06-2025 egksn;]
mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr lanfHkZr i=ksa ds vuqdze esa ys[k gS fd M- 'kSys"k ikfVy
'kk[kk izca/kd cu[ksM+h@eNsjkdykW ,oa leukiqj esa 'kk[kk izc/kd dh gSfl;r
ls inLFk FksA 'kkldh; os;jgkml eNsjkdykW ij ekdZisM ds [kkrs esas
Hk.Mkfjr ewax dk Hkqxrku ekdZiSM }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s ifjnku vkns'k ds
rgr lacaf/kr ikVhZ dks tekdrkZ izfrfuf/k dh vuqifLFkr@vLohd`fr fLFkfr esa
Hkqxrku fd;k x;k FkkA Hkqxrku gsrq 'kkldh; os;jgkml eNsjkdykW esa
dk;Zjr nSfud Jfedksa dks y[kuyky s/o y{ehukjk;.k yks/kh] eukst dqekj
vfgjokj s/o daNsnhyky vfgjokj ] izseukjk;.k jk; s/o fxjh'k dqekj
jk;]lfpu dq'kokgk s/o NksVsyky dq'kokgk] ckcwyky dgkj s/o lkE; izlkn
dgkj] /kujkt vfgjokj s/o tqxjkt vfgjokj] bZejr dq'kokgk s/o nkeksnj
izlkn ]xxu ;kno] lrh'k vfgjokj s/o nqyhpan vfgjokj] ekSf[kd :i ls
funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA Jh 'kSys"k ikfVy ds funsZ'kkuqlkj buds }kjk ,e-ih-
17,p,p 1048 ds ek/;e ls voS/k fudklh V~zd pkyd thou esjk firk Jh
gfjflag esgjk fuoklh fiifj;k ds }kjk fd;k x;kA tks fd rglhynkj
cu[ksM+h }kjk ewax dh xkMh dks tIr dj Fkkuk cu[ksM+h esas lqiqnZxh nh x;hA
'kk[kk eNsjkdykW ds mDr nSfud Jfedksa }kjk f}rh; tkap ny eq[;ky;
Hkksiky ds tkap ny dks fn;s x;s dFkuksa esas fojks/kkHkkl gksus ls ;g fl/n~/k
gksrk gS fd''kSy"s k ikfVy }kjk bu deZpkfj;ksa ij vuSfrd ncko dkj.k
ifj.kke gks ldrk gSA e-iz- os;jgkmflax ,oa ykftfLVd dkiksZj's ku eq[;ky;
ls izkIr funsZ'k vuqlkj vn~;ksgLrk{kjh ds }kjk i= dza- 95 fnukad 10-04-2025
ds rgr 03 lnL;h; tkap ny xfBr fd;k x;k ftlesa Jh 'kSys"k ikfVy ds
dk;ZHkkj lapkfyr 'kkldh; os;jgkml eNsjkdyk ds xksnke dza- 06 esa 62
cksjh HkkSfrd :i ls de ikbZ x;hA ,oa fnukad 09-04-2025 dks ewax Hkqxrku
fd;s x;s 08 V~zdksa esa 60 cksfj;k dh la[;k c<krs gq;s fjdkMZ esa n'kkZdj
Hkqxrku uk djrs gq;s dwVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj fd;s x;sA xfBr tkap ny dks
HkkSfrd lR;kiu esa xqejkg djus ,oa xksnke dza- 06 esa HkkSfrd :i ls de ikbZ
x;h cksfj;ksa dks cjkcj djus ds mns~'; ls ewax ds LVkdksa dh mijh ys;j dks
vO;ofLFkr fd;k x;k A eq[;ky; Hkksiky Lrj ls vkns'k dza- 261 fnukad 15-
04-2025 ds rgr xfBr ny 03 lnL; }kjk Hkh 'kk[kk eNsjkdykW ds xksnke
dza- 06 esa 63 cksjh HkkSfrd lR;kiu esa de ikbZ x;h] ftlls Jh 'kSys"k ikfVy
dh Hkwfedk lanfX/k gSA Jh 'kk[kk izca/kd 'kSys"k ikfVy }kjk ekdZisM ds [kkrs
dh eawx ds Hkqxrku ds nkSjku fjdkMZ esa la[;k c<krs gq;s c<h gq;h cksfj;ksa dk
Hkqxrku ugha djrs gq;s dwVjfpr ntLrkost iwoZ esa Hkh rS;kj dj fd;s x;s gS]
,oa c<+h gq;s cksfj;kssa dks fcuk nLrkosrtksa ds voS/k fudklh 300 cksjh V~zd
dzekad ,e-ih-17,p,p 1048 ds ek/;e ls dh xbZ gSA V~zd esa tIr 'kqnk ewax
ds cksfj;ksa esa yxs VSx ,oa ekdkZ ls 'kkldh; ewax gksus dh iqf"V gksrh gSA
lanfHkZr i= dza- 04 ds ek/;e ls eq[;ky; Hkksiky }kjk mDr izdj.k esa Jh
'kSys"k ikfVy }kjk ,oa nksf"k;ksa ds fo:) ,Q-vkbZ-vkj ntZ djkus ds funsZ'k
fn;s x;s gSA vr% Jh 'kSys"k ikfVy }kjk 'kk[kk ij inLFk LVkQ ij vuSfrd
noko cukdj eawx dh voS/k fudklh dj O;fDrxr ykHk ds mn~ns'k ls 'kklu
dks gkfu iagqpkbZ gSA ftlls buds fo:) iqfyl izkFkfedh ntZ djkus dk
d"V djsaA izdj.k esa okgu ekfyd@M~zkbZoj thou esgsjk }kjk fcuk nLrkostksa
ds 'kkldh; xksnkeksa eNsjkdyka ls voS/k ifjogu ds dkj.k ls nks"kh gS] ,oa
buds }kjk tkap ny dks fn;s x;s c;kuksa esa fojks/kkHkkl gSA buds }kjk
LFkkuh; rglhynkj dks fn;s x;s c;ku esa V~zd esa ''kkldh; os;jgkml esa
ewwax Hkjkus dk mYys[k gS ysfdu tkap ny dks fn;k x;k c;ku vyx gSA
ftlls voS/k fudklh izdj.k esa mudh lafyIrrk gSA vr% thouyky esgjk ds
fo:) iqfyl izkfFkfedh ntZ djkus dk d"V djsasA gLrk{kj vaxzt s h esa
viBuh; fnukad 21-06-2025 vrqy lksjBs {kSf=; izca/kd eizosykdk {kS=h;
dk;kZy; ueZnkiqje "
11. Thus, crux of the matter/primarily prosecution case is that applicant
was Branch Manager of Bankhedi, Macchera Kalan and Samnapur Government
Warehouse and there was found shortage of 62/63 sacks of Moong Dal.
12. It is evident from panchnama dated 9.4.2025 prepared by Tahsildar,
Bankhedi, Akka Ikka as well as report sent by him to SDO, Pipariya on
10.04.2025 that on 09.04.2025, one truck bearing registration number MP-17-HH-
1048 was seized by him approximately with 300 sacks of Moong Dal on the
ground that no papers pertaining thereto were found. From documents available in
the case diary, it appears that on 10.04.2025, an enquiry team was constituted and
thereafter on 15.04.2025 also, another team was constituted and this team
submitted its report on 19.4.2025 but in the instant case, FIR has been registered
on 21.06.2025 on the basis of written complaint submitted by Regional Manager
on 21.06.2025. Thus, from aforesaid, it is evident that even after two enquiry
reports, no FIR was lodged immediately against the petitioner and it has been
lodged only after more than two months.
13. Further, examination of FIR bearing crime no.213/2025 for the
offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS reveals the
following facts:-
(i) petitioner was Branch Manager of Government Warehousing and
Logistics Corporation, Branch, Bankhedi:
(ii) Jeevan Lal @ Chotu is owner and driver of the truck bearing
registration number MP-17-HH-1048;
(iii) a three member team was constituted on 10.04.2025, who submitted
its report to the effect that there was physically shortage of 62 sacks of Moong Dal
in Warehouse No.6, Maccherakalan;
(iv) another three member team was constituted on 15.4.2025 and this
team submitted its report on 19.4.2025 to the effect that during physical
verification/inspection, 63 sacks of Moong Dal were found short in warehouse
no.6, Maccherakalan;
(v) it is also mentioned in the FIR that increased Moong Dal sacks were
taken out from godown illegally without any documents and for taking out of 300
sacks has been done through truck bearing registration number MP-17-HH-1048
but in the FIR, it is not mentioned that when aforesaid truck was seized by
Tahsildar, Akka Ikka on 9.4.2025, how many Moong Dal sacks were found in the
truck;
(vi) in FIR, both the enquiry reports have been mentioned but in FIR it is
not mentioned as to how many sacks of Moong Dal were found in the truck:
14. So far as report submitted by three member enquiry team constituted
on 10.04.2025 is concerned, no date is mentioned in the report as to on which date,
report was prepared. It is evident from the documents available in the case diary
that a report was published in the newspaper with respect to seizure of one truck
approximately with 300 sacks of Moong Dal without any documents and aforesaid
report was published in newspaper dated 10.04.2025. It is also evident from the
report submitted by a three member enquiry team that enquiry team was
constituted on 10.04.2025 on the basis of news items published in the newspaper
dated 10.04.2025 and it has inspected/checked warehouse, Maccherakalan,
Bankhedi on 10.04.2025 physically. In page 10 of aforesaid report, it is mentioned
that as per joint statements of employees of Branch, Maccherakalan (Lakhanlal,
Manoj, Prem Narayan, Sachin, Babulal, Dhanraj, Imrat, Gagan, Satish) applicant
Shailesh Patil got loaded 130 sacks from warehouse no.7 in truck bearing
registration number MP-17-HH-1048 and 120 sacks of Moong Dal from godown
no.6. Thus, from aforesaid, it appears that total 250 sacks of Moong Dal were
loaded in aforesaid truck from warehouse no.6 and 7. In aforesaid report, it is not
mentioned that all the Moong Dal sacks (approximately 300) were loaded from
warehouse no.6. In report, reference is also made to Raju Thakur Hammal and
others to the effect that they loaded aforesaid truck from warehouse nos. 6 and 7.
As per statement of Raju Thakur dated 10.04.2025 available in the case diary, he
loaded 310 sacks of Moong Dal in truck number MP-17-HH-1048 on 9.4.2025. In
aforesaid report, it is mentioned that 62 sacks of Moong Dal were found short in
godown no.6.
15. It is also evident from the case diary that another three member team
was constituted on 15.4.2025 and this committee submitted its report on 19.4.2025.
In this report, it is mentioned that in physical verification, 63 sacks of Moong Dal
were found short in warehouse no.6 and during physical verification of warehouse
no.7, 4 sacks of Moog Dal were found extra. It is also mentioned in the report that
Raju Hammal has informed that 310 sacks of Moong Dal were loaded in truck
bearing registration number MP-17-HH-1048. Further, in this report, it is
mentioned that " mDr izdj.k esa Mk- 'kSys"k ikfVy 'kk[kk izca/kd eNsjkdyk us vius drZO;ksa esa
ykijokgh djrs gq;s inh; gSfl;r ds nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu ugha fd;k x;k gSA tkapny }kjk dh xbZ
tkpa ds nkSjku HkkSfrd lR;kiu esa ikbZ xbZ 63 cksjh ewax dh deh ,oa lqj{kk xkMZ Jh jktdqekj dgkj ds
dFku vuqlkj xkMh dzekad ,eih 17 ,p,p 1048 fnukad 09-04-2025 dks xksnke esa [kkyh vkuk ,oa eawx
Hkjdj tkuk ds vk/kkj ij mDr V~zd xksnke ls x;k gS] ftlesa Mk- ikfVy dh Hkwfedk langs kLin gSA "
16. In seizure memo dated 24.06.2025, 15.30 hours and which has been
prepared in the police station premises, Bankhedi, it is mentioned that during
physical verification of truck bearing registration no. MP-17-HH-1048 and which
was already parked in the police station premises for security purpose, by
complainant Atul Sorate, 294 sacks of Moong Dal were found in truck bearing
registration number MP-17-HH-1048, weighing 147 quintals. It is also evident
from aforesaid seizure memo that truck was already parked in the police station
premises and it was covered with tarpaulin and was fastened with rope. Perusal of
seizure memo reveals that therein, it is not mentioned that truck was sealed in any
manner whatsoever. Further, aforesaid seizure memo does not contain signature of
petitioner/ and truck owner /driver Jeevan Lal Mehra @ Chotu and no explanation
for the same is mentioned in the seizure memo.
17. Panchnama dated 24.6.2025, 15:00 hours, prepared at police station
Bankhedi, is also available in the case diary and therein, it is mentioned that during
physical verification in the presence of Branch Manager, Bankhedi,
Maccherakalan, Samnapur, Bhim Singh Dabur, after opening of tarpaulin of the
truck, 294 sacks of Moong Dal were found in truck bearing registration number
MP-17-HH-1048.
18. Thus, in aforesaid panchnama, which has been prepared on 24.6.2025,
1500 hours, tarpaulin of the truck was opened in the presence of Bhim Singh
Dabur, Branch Manager of Maccherakalan, Bankhedi, Samnapur and loaded
Moong Dal was physically verified and in seizure memo, which has been prepared
on 24.06.2025 at about 15:30 hours, it is mentioned that complainant Atul Solate
physically verified Moong Dal loaded in the truck, which was covered with
Tarpaulin and which was fastened with rope.
19. In weighing panchnama dated 24.9.2025, it is mentioned that net
weight of Moong Dal was found 154.86 quintals. In temporary supardagi
panchnama dated 24.9.2025, 16:30 hours, prepared at Maccherakalan warehouse, it
is mentioned that in truck bearing registration number MP-17-HH-1048, 309 sacks
of Moong Dal were found and 10 sacks have been damaged due to water seepage.
In truck supardaginama dated 24.9.2025, prepared at Maccherakalan warehouse, it
is mentioned that truck bearing registration number MP-17-HH-1048 was handed
over empty to owner Jeevanlal Mehra after depositing /unloading 309 sacks of
Moong Dal in Maccherakalan warehouse.
20. In Supardagi Panchnama dated 27.09.2025, 11:30 hours, which has
been prepared at Maccherakalan, it is mentioned that "dqy eawx tks V~zd ikuh esa [kM+k gksus
ls ewwax esa 'khr vkus ls" and that in truck, 309 sacks were found in the place of 294
sacks. In case diary, panchnama dated 9.4.2025 is also available and it has been
prepared by Tahsildar, Bankhedi, Akka Ikka and it is mentioned therein that
approximately 300 sacks of Moong Dal were found in truck bearing registration
number MP-17-HH-1048. In this Panchnama, it is not mentioned that immediately
after seizure, whole of the truck was sealed or part of the truck, containing sacks of
Moong Dal was sealed. In report submitted by Tahsildar to SDO, Bankhedi, it is
mentioned that in aforesaid truck, there were approximately 300 sacks of Moong
Dal.
21. Thus, it is evident from discussion in the forgoing paras as well as
documents available in the case diary that there are serious/material
contradictions/discrepancies with respect to as to how many sacks of Moong Dal
were loaded in the truck bearing registration number MP-17-HH-1048 on 9.4.2025
and whether truck was loaded from warehouse no.6 solely or from both the
warehouse no.6 and 7. There are also serious/material contradictions and
discrepancies as to how many sacks of Moong Dal were actually found in truck
bearing registration number MP-17-HH-1048. It is also evident from discussion in
the forgoing paras as well as documents available in the case diary that aforesaid
truck was not physically verified/sacks of Moong Dal were not physically counted
in the presence of truck driver/owner i.e. Jeevan Lal Mehra @ Chotu or in
petitioner's presence and no explanation for the same is available in the case diary.
In FIR, it has been mentioned that 300 sacks of Moong Dal were illegally taken out
without any documents whereas in both the committee report, it is mentioned that
there was shortage of 62/63 sacks of Moong Dal only. Further, in both the enquiry
reports, it is not mentioned as to how many sacks of Moong Dal were loaded in
truck bearing registration number MP-17-HH-1048 and both the enquiry teams
have not physically inspected or verified aforesaid truck wherein alleged sacks of
Moong Dal were loaded.
22. Further, it is also evident from documents available in the case diary
that immediately after seizure on 9.4.2025 or thereafter at any point of time, truck
being registration number MP-17-HH-1048 along with sacks of Moong Dal was
never/not sealed in any manner whatsoever. Aforesaid truck was seized on
9.4.2025 and the truck has been physically verified/sacks of Moong Dal found
loaded in the truck have been physically counted for the first time on 24.06.2025
i.e. after more than two and half months of the seizure.
23. As per statement of Raju Hammal, 310 sacks of Moong Dal were
loaded in the truck on 9.4.2025 and in weighing panchnama/supardgi panchnama
available in the case diary, it is mentioned that 309 sacks of Moong Dal were found
in the truck bearing registration number MP-17-HH-1048 and they were
unloaded/deposited in Maccherakalan warehouse.
24. Thus, as per FIR, if 300 sacks of Moong Dal were illegally taken out
of Maccherakalan godown through truck bearing registration number MP-17-HH-
1048 on 9.4.2024 and when aforesaid truck was seized by Tahsildar, Bankhedi
along with approximately 300 sacks of Moong Dal of same godown on 09.04.2025
without any papers, then, there should have been shortage of 300 sacks of Moong
Dal in godown No.6 Maccherakalan, but it is not the case of prosecution that there
was shortage of 300 sacks of Moong Dal in godown no.6, Maccherakalan. Further,
if as per statement of Raju Hammal available in the case diary on 9.4.2025, 310
sacks of Moong Dal were loaded in truck bearing registration number MP-17-HH-
1048 and if as per temporary supardaginama panchnama/truck panchnama, 309
sacks of Moong Dal were found in the truck, then, there cannot be shortage of
62/63 sacks of Moong Dal in godown no.6, Maccherakalan. Evidently, Tahsildar,
Bankhedi has seized truck bearing registration number MP-17-HH-1048 on
09.04.2025 along with approximately 300 sacks of Moong Dal (though the same
were not physically counted at the time of seizure) on the ground that there were
no papers for the same and as per prosecution case, aforesaid Moong Dal sacks
were of Maccherakalan godown, then, there should have been shortatge of 300
sacks of Moong Dal in Maccherakalan godown. As per prosecution case, there was
no shortage of Moong Dal in godown no.7, Maccherakalan. As per joint statement
of employees of Branch Maccherakalan available in the case diary, only 120 sacks
of Moong Dal were loaded from godown no.6, then, there should have been
shortage of 120 sacks of Moong Dal in godown no.6, Maccherakalan.
25. With respect to facts discussed in the preceding paras, it would also be
appropriate to reproduce memorandum of co-accused Jeevan Mehra @ Chhotu to
point out the nature and status of Investigation. Memorandum of co-accused
Jeevan Mehra is as under:-
"eseksjsaMe
¼/kkjk 23 Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e½
Fkkuk&cu[ksMh ftyk& ueZnkiqjke ¼e-iz-½
vi-da-z 213@25 /kkjk &316¼5½] 318¼4½]3¼5½ B.N.S.
eseksjs.Me dk LFkku& 23-09-25 ds ----------15-30 cts
eseksjs.Me fnukad le;& Fkkuk&cu[ksMh
uke vkjksih& thou esgjk s/o gjhflag esgjkmez 34 o"kZ
lk- gFkokl ¼eaMhVksyk½ fiifj;k
uke lk{kh& 1- idat esgjk s/o gjhflaag esgjk mez 38 o"kZ
lk- gFkokl fiifj;k
2 :is'k dsoV s/o eqds'k dsoV mez 23 o"kZ
lk- gFkokl ¼eaMhVksyk½ fiifj;k
uke vf/kdkjh & dk;Z- mi-fujh{kd ijljke ekyoh; PS-
cu[ksMhA
fooj.k
eSus fn0 09-04-25 dks esjk V~zd dzekad MP- 17-HH-1048 10 pdk dks
eNsjkdyk "kSys'k ikVhy czkap eSustj ds dgus ls ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gLrk{kj xokg gLrk{kj vkjksih
1- iadt esgjk thou esgjk "
2 :is'k
26. Aforesaid memorandum does not contain signature of SI Parasram
Malviya and in details, part of the memorandum shown by "................" has
been left blank. Aforesaid memorandum of co-accused Jeeven Mehra also indicates
and substantiates petitioner's submissions that he has been falsely implicated in the
case.
27. As per petitioner's case (Annexure A/2 and Annexure A/3) Kuber
Agricom purchased 4466.50 quintals of Moong Dal in auction and the same was
required to be delivered to Kuber Agricom in pursuance of order issued by DMO,
Narmadapuram. As per Annexure A/4 (delivery order) dated 9.4.2025, 2665 sacks
of Moong Dal i.e. 1276.46 quintals were delivered to Kuber Agricom and in
weight check memo dated 10.04.2025 (Annx. A/5) 2665 sacks of Moong Dal
weighing 1276.47 quintals are mentioned but in the delivery order (Annexure A/6),
number of sacks mentioned is 2600 weighing 1276.80 quintals. As per submissions
of learned counsel for the petitioner, on account of some error in delivery order,
2600 sacks have been mentioned, instead of 2665 sacks, whereas weight has been
correctly mentioned and for rectification of aforesaid mistake, applicant had made
complaint /written to Regional Manager.
28. Further, the present case is not one in which only FIR is before
this Court and nothing more. Perusal of the case diary reveals that in the instant
case, FIR was registered on 21.06.2025 and substantial investigation etc. has
already been done. Thus, in the instant case, at this stage, it cannot be said that
before this Court, there is no clear picture of the case.
29. Hence, in view of discussions in the foregoing paras, as well as having
regard to nature and extent of documents/evidence available in the case diary and
stage of investigation, at this stage, in this Court's considered opinion, even
without making any enquiry or judging the reliability or geniusness and merits of
the case, the allegations made in the FIR and documents available in the case diary/
bare facts, as disclosed in FIR in the context of other documents available in the
case diary, at this stage, themselves clearly and unequivocally point out to non-
disclosure of any cognizable offence
30. Therefore, having regard to overall factual matrix of the case, in this
Court's opinion, if criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR bearing
Crime No.213 of 2025 registered at PS Bankhedi for offence under Sections 3(5),
316 (5) and 318 (4) of BNS are allowed to be continued, then, the same would
result in miscarriage of justice and would amount to abuse of process of law.
31. Resultantly, in view of discussions in the foregoing paras, petition
filed by the petitioner is allowed and FIR bearing Crime No.213 of 2025 of P.S.
Bankhedi, Narmadapuram for offence punishable under Sections 3 (5), 316 (5) and
318 (4) of BNS and all subsequent proceedings pertaining thereto are hereby
quashed.
32. Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and disposed off
accordingly.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Hashmi
