1. - The petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition for quashing the first information report No. 92/2008. registered at Police Station Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu. The impugned report had been filed by Shri R.L. Jhakar, District Supply Officer, Jhunjhunu.

2. Earlier when this petition was heard by High Court, it was ordered for issuance of notice to the respondent. It was also ordered that in the meanwhile, the District Supply Officer shall not cancel the license of the petitioner and that he would not be arrested. On service having been effected on the respondents the matter was admitted on 18.2.2009. Subsequently, as agreed between the parties, the matter has been taken up for final hearing.

3. Instant report was lodged on 27.2.2008. It has been averred in the report that the supply of refilling was not being made by the gas agency at the residence of the consumers. It has also been averred that when the informant had visited the agency, inspection of the record was made and some of the consumers, present there, had complained for irregular supply of refilling, etc. etc. In the report, it has been alleged that the petitioners had breached the conditions of license, particularly condition No. 3 (a) I, II, III and IV. Therefore, it was stated in the report that the petitioners had committed the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners had argued that from the contents of the first information report, no offence alleged has been made out. According to him, the case of the informant himself is that of breach of condition of licence. Therefore, it has been submitted that the informant had in fact undertaken departmental proceedings for breach of condition of license and the license of the petitioners had been suspended on 28.2.2008. In that respect, he has submitted that the petitioners had challenged* the order of suspension of license by way of filing writ petition before the High Court (2238/2008) and the Court was pleased to pass an interim order on 12.3.2008, whereby the operation of the order of suspension was stayed. The Court had left it open to the respondents to continue with the enquiry with regard to breach of condition of license. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by lodging of the impugned report, it has been case of double jeopardy against the petitioner. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it is a fact that during the relevant period, there had been shortage of supply of refilling of cylinders from the company itself as a result of which the consumers had themselves come to the office of the agency to take refilling as it was urgently required. The supply to the consumer at their residence was never refused by the agency. He has submitted that whatever supply was made by the company, the entire quantity was distributed to the consumers and this is apparent from the supply and stock record of the agency. Therefore it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is at all made out.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor has submitted that there had been no supply of refilling of cylinders at the residence of the consumers and as such the consumers had felt agitated. Further, he has submitted that there had been complaint of not providing the concession of Rs. 8/- to the consumers when the supply was to be made at the office of the agency itself. However, he has clearly submitted that in the impugned report the main allegation is that there had been breach of condition of license.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Counsel for the rival parties. A perusal of the first information report goes to show that the informant has lodged this report primarily on the ground that there had been breach of condition of license. Besides, it is also revealed from the report t