Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 4 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048591
2024:PHHC:048591
CRM-M No. 5499 of 2012 (O&M) --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 5499 of 2012 (O&M)
Reserved on:-27.02.2024
Pronounced on :-04.04.2024
Ranjit Kaur .......... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, by way of present petition, filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C., seeks quashing of FIR No.187 dated 26.10.2010, registered
under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 420
IPC, at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana besides challenging
challan/charge sheet dated 09.05.2010 (Annexure P-10) alongwith all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case are that initially, petitioner-Ranjit Kaur
was running a gas agency of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the
name of M/s Sakater Gas Service which was allotted to her on 19.06.1992,
by the Punjab Govt being unmarried girl under the policy of the State and
the same was renewed in her name from time to time. After, the petitioner
migrated to Canada in 1992-93 as she got married there and the aforesaid
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048591
gas agency was looked after by her sister-Manjit Kaur and her husband-
Sukhwant Singh. Later, on 16.01.2003, petitioner even executed power of
attorney dated 16.01.2003 in favour of her sister authorising her to deal with
the same. Thereafter, in the year 2010, a dispute arose between Manjit Kaur
and their brother regarding settlement of accounts due to which, he lodged a
complaint before the Department of Food and Civil Supplies. Upon inquiry,
some irregularities in the functioning of the agency were found, as a result
thereof, present FIR was registered against Manjit Kaur and her husband
Sukhwant Singh for not maintaining records and selling of gas cylinders to
general public at higher rate rather than the registered customers.
Subsequently, the name of the petitioner was added as an accused in the
same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence was
made out against the present petitioner as there was no specific allegation
against her in the FIR in question. He contended that the petitioner was
neither incharge nor responsible for conducting day-to-day business of the
agency at the relevant point in time, as she executed a power of attorney
dated 16.01.2003 in favour of her sister authorising her to deal with the
same, beside it, the complaint was filed on 23.10.2010, on the basis of
which, present FIR was registered on 26.10.2010, whereas the petitioner
never visited India since December, 2008.
Learned counsel also submitted that though the main allegations
were against Manjit Kaur and her husband-Sukhmant Singh (sister and
brother-in-law respectively of the petitioner), who were operating the gas
agency and were selling the gas cylinders at higher price to the general
public and not to the registered customers besides it, they not even
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048591
maintaining the record as per agreement, however, both were granted the
concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2011,
though later convicted. Moreover, even an appeal filed at the instance of
Manjit Kaur and Sukhwant Singh against the judgment of their conviction
and order of sentence dated 10.07.2019 passed by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, was allowed, thereby, acquitted them of the
charges framed, vide judgment dated 20.02.2023 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed
the prayer made in the present petition, while submitting that the petitioner
being incharge of the aforesaid gas agency was responsible in conducting
day-to-day business of the agency and as such, has rightly been arrayed as
accused; thus, the FIR in question warranted no interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper book.
6. In the present case, a perusal of the FIR shows that the
allegations of not maintaining records and violation of the terms &
conditions of the contract entered with the BPCL were against the sister &
brother-in-law of the petitioner, who were already acquitted by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 20.02.2023,
which even attained finality, there being no challenge against it till date.
Relevant findings from the judgment dated 20.02.2023 are reproduced
hereunder:-
"From perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it
reveals that on checking in the gas agency on 23.10.2010, officials of
the Food and Supply department found 150 gas cylinders missing
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048591
which were received from the LPG Bottling Plant, Lalru and shortage
of 13 cylinders of 14.2 kg and shortage of 38 cylinders of 19 Kg each
was found in the record. However, it has come in the cross-
examination of PW-10 Deep Garg, AFSO that as per the record
Ex.PW-4/2, the cylinders were alloted from Lalru bottling Plant on
23.10.2010 at 7.15 PM, whereas, the checking in the gas agency was
made on 23.10.2010 at about 3.30 PM. So, when 150 cylinders started
from Lalru bottling plant at about 7.15 PM on 23.10.2010, the same
were meant to be received in the gas agency on 27.10.2010. The
accused therefore have not received 150 LPG cylinders by the time
when the checking was made. So, there is no question of shortage of
said 150 gas cylinders. Further, it has also come in the cross-
examination of this witness that the cylinder having weight of 19 kg
falls in the category of commercial cylinder. The said cylinder does
not fall in the ambit of Essential Commodities Act. So, it cannot be
held that gas agency was found short of 38 cylinders of 19 kg as due
to shortage of the same if any, no offence under the Essential
Commodities Act is made out. It has come in the cross-examination of
PW-7 Sham Sunder, Assistant Food and Supply Inspector that he
cannot tell how many total filled cylinders were in the godown. He
volunteered to say that Incharge, Assistant Food Supply Officer can
tell about the same. So, the report given by the officials of the Food
and Supply department is not correct as per the record. During the
evidence, the original stock register has not been produced. So,
without going through the original stock register, it cannot be held
that the shortage of the gas cylinders was found in the gas agency.
The godown incharge Jai Singh has not been examined by
prosecution. Moreover, the three officials of the Food and Supply
Department made checking in the gas agency on 23.10.2010 and they
have submitted report regarding irregularities, but they have failed to
join any independent person from the locality at the time of checking."
7. The only allegation against the present petitioner was that she
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048591
was the owner/allottee of the gas agency, whereas, admittedly, she already
executed a power of attorney dated 16.01.2003 in favour of her sister
authorizing her to deal with the same, who was thus managing the affairs
thereof and once the accusation against Manjit Kaur and her husband-
Sukhwant Singh were not proved, resulting into their acquittal of the charges
framed against them, no offence at all was made out against the petitioner,
against whom even the evidence remained the same. In this view of the
matter, continuation of criminal proceedings against her clearly amounted to
misuse of process of law. Even otherwise, in the wake of acquittal of the
main accused Manjit Kaur and her husband-Sukhwant Singh, continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner in terms of the findings recorded vide
judgment dated 20.02.2023 would cause miscarriage of justice to her.
Moreover, the uncontroverted allegations as made in the FIR besides even
the evidence collected in support during investigation, even if taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence against the petitioner. Accordingly, once the ingredients of offences
as set out in the FIR are not made out, the exercise of power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. becomes absolutely essential to prevent injustice towards the
rights of the petitioner especially when she is residing in Canada and has not
even visited India since 2008.
8. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, the continuation of
proceedings arising out of the FIR in question being a futile exercise which
would result in the wastage of precious time of the Court even, the present
petition is allowed and FIR No.187 dated 26.10.2010, registered under
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 420 IPC, at
Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana as well as challan/charge sheet dated
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048591
09.05.2010 (Annexure P-10) alongwith all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom qua the petitioner are hereby quashed.
April 04, 2024 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
sonika JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
