The court ruled that when the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence and the accused lacks the necessary legal status, quashing of proceedings is warranted.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1.Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhojpur at Ara in G.R. No. 55/2021, whereby and where under the petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. (discharge) by the petitioner dated 30.03.2022 was heard and rejected without considering the fact that petitioner’s was not a P.D.S. dealer at the time of lodging FIR for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 24.6.2020, villager of Piparahiya gave a telephonic information to the local police station that one Bishnu Gupta who is going with Luna vehicle loaded the grain bags deposed that he purchased the rice from the petitioner i.e. total of 150 Kg, which was the articles of Essential commodities along with other bags as he is doing business of sale and purchase of food grains. Thereafter some other villagers called by one Mantu Yadav, who supported their version and thereafter local police was intimated about the same. S.D.O. Sadar, Ara arrested Bishnu Gupta alongwith articles with Luna vehicle and took away to the Police Station after making seizure-list in presence of two independent witnesses.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the present case instituted on instance of witnesses of Ara (Mu) P.S. Case No. 106/2020 lodged by this petitioner under Sections 341, 323, 372, 354, 427, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC). It is submitted that apparently this case was lodged with ulterior and oblique motive to settle score in aforesaid case against petitioner. In this context, it is further submitted by learned counsel that the seized vehicle loaded with grains was not seized from the shop of the petitioner rather on way and from possession of one Bishnu Gupta. It is pointed out that the dealership of the petitioner was suspended much prior to lodging this case and therefore at the relevant point of time petitioner was not a PDS dealer and, as such, institution of present case is bad in eyes of law against him. It is further submitted that the licence of petitioner was cancelled on 04.05.2020, whereas the present case was lodged on 24.06.2020. It is also pointed out that the implication raised on the basis of shortage of wheat which was said to about 1.5 quintals only. In this context, it is submitted that wheat is no more in the list of essential commodities as per government notification i.e. State Government on 17.10.1985 vide GSR No. 49. However later on through GSR No. 57 dated 10.11.1986.

5. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that all such legal positions and documents on record, which is of sterling nature was not considered while rejecting the prayer of petitioner as pressed before the learned trial court under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. , reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 and State of Orissa vs. Devendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568

6. Learned APP opposed the prayer of quashing application.

7. It would be apposite to reproduce para 102 of the Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), which reads as under:

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