Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sanjay vs State And Anr on 4 November, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:44908]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2161/2016
Sanjay Tiwari son of Shri Chandmal, resident of Mangrop,
District Bhilwara.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
      1. The State of Rajasthan
      2. Ravi Jadhav son of Shri Shiva Rao Jadav, resident of 107,
        Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar, presently posted as E.O., Office of
        Gramin Bhilwara, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :   Mr. Ramesh Purohit
For Respondent(s)           :   Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

Reserved on : 07.10.2025 Pronounced on : 04.11.2025

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(for short 'the Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No.76/2016 registered

at Police Station Mangrop, District Bhilwara for the offences under

Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under Section

420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a

dealer of fair price shop, Suwana, District Bhilwara and was also

having additional charge of fair price shop at Bhagga Ka Khera,

District Bhilwara.

2.1 On 27.06.2016, the Enforcement Officer and the District

Supply Officer, in compliance with the instructions issued by

District Collector, reached the fair price shop situated at Bhagga

Ka Khera, District Bhilwara at 1.15 P.M. for sudden inspection.

(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:36:54 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44908] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-2161/2016]

However, the shop was closed and the petitioner was not found at

the shop.

2.2 Mr. Ashok Dhobi, salesman who was present at the shop was

asked to open the shop. The said salesman informed that the

petitioner had taken away the stock register, distribution register,

unit register etc. without informing him. All those registers were

not found at the fair price shop, Bhagga Ka Khera, District

Bhilwara and Parcha Mauka was prepared. In the above

circumstances, the subject FIR was lodged on the basis of written

report alleging that the petitioner had taken away the Government

material pertaining to the shop with malafide intention.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has not committed any crime and the complaint lodged

is false and frivolous.

3.1 Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner

was having charge of two fair price shops and at the time of

inspection, he was present at another fair price shop situated at

Suwana, District Bhilwara. When the authorities reached at fair

price shop situated at Suwana on the same date at 3.30 P.M., they

found the stock and distribution register of fair price shop at

Suwana in proper manner and did not make any demand

regarding the stock register and distribution register of the fair

price shop situated at Bhagga Ka Khera, District Bhilwara.

3.2 Learned counsel has further submitted that the District

Supply Officer also issued a show cause notice on 27.06.2016 to

the petitioner calling upon him to submit reply along with record

on 30.06.2016 in respect of irregularities mentioned, which were

found during inspection at fair price shop situated at Bhagga Ka

(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:36:54 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44908] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-2161/2016]

Khera, District Bhilwara. However, even before the petitioner could

submit the reply along with relevant record, the subject FIR came

to be lodged on 28.06.2016. Therefore, the lodging of FIR is clear

abuse of process of law. He thus prayed to quash the subject FIR.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer

made by the petitioner and submitted that after a thorough

investigation, the police has reached to the conclusion that

offences under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and

offences under Sections 420, 409 and 204 IPC have been found

proved against the petitioner.

4.1 He has further submitted that charge-sheet No.93/2017

dated 02.11.2017 has been proposed by the Police which could

not be submitted due to the pendency of the instant criminal

petition.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

factual report and the material on record.

6. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is

extremely limited and it can be exercised sparingly only in

circumstances where non-interference would result in miscarriage

of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp. (1)

SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines for exercising inherent

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal

proceedings.

The relevant part of the said judgment is as under :-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the

(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:36:54 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44908] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2161/2016]

principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as

(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:36:54 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44908] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-2161/2016]

contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Neeharika Infrastructure Vs. State of Maharashtra reported

in (2021) 19 SCC 401, has laid down the law regarding the

exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

"33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the "rarest of rare cases" (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.

(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:36:54 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44908] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-2161/2016]

33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.

33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.

33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.

33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 CrPC, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."

8. The case setup by the petitioner does not fall under any of

the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for

quashing of FIR in the above cases.

8.1 The first contention of the petitioner is that when the

authorities reached fair price shop situated at Suwana, they did

(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:36:54 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44908] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-2161/2016]

not ask for the stock registers, distribution register and unit

Court finds no force in the said contention as there is a specific

allegation in the FIR that the petitioner took away the government

material pertaining to shop situated at Bhagga Ka Khera with

malafide intent.