Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Mahendra Kumar Sharma and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Misc. Criminal Case No. 48206 of 2022
Decided On : 20-03-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashment of FIR
Act Referred
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT: S.3, S.7
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CONTROL ORDER: 18, Cl.10(3), Cl.10(4), Cl.11(1), Cl.11(3), Cl.11(9), Cl.13(1), Cl.13(2), Cl.15(4)
Headnote
(B) Judicial Discretion - The High Court clarified that accused have no right to be heard before FIR registration or investigation initiation, establishing procedural legal frameworks and limitations on the role of criminal proceedings. (Paras 13-17)
Facts of the case:
The FIR was filed due to allegations of stock discrepancies in a fair price shop managed by the applicants, based on a complaint from lower-level officials. They asserted no violation of conditions was proven.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the FIR and subsequent charge sheet were valid under the law, rejecting the applicants' claims against the prosecution.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the FIR could only be filed upon the Collector's recommendation and if the applicants had a right to a pre-FIR hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that filing an FIR does not necessitate the Collector's recommendation, and participants in the investigation do not have an inherent right to a hearing in this context, reaffirming well-established procedural precedents (Paras 9, 12, 14).
Result: Application dismissed.
For the Appellant : Nitin Agrawal
For the Respondent: Anjali Gyanani
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for quashing fir due to alleged violations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on procedural violations and fir registration practices. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. consideration of procedural questions about fir registration. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. interpretation of legal statutes regarding investigation procedures. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's position on the right to a hearing. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. reiteration of judicial precedents relating to investigation and rights. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. final ruling that application is dismissed. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
1. This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.179 of 2022 registered at Police Station Isagarh, District Ashoknagar (M.P.) for offence under Sections 3 , 7 of Essential Commodities Act, as well as subsequent proceedings pursuant to the FIR.
2. Challenging the FIR, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that applicant No.1 is the manager of Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Pipariya and applicant No. 2 is the salesman of the fair price shop, which is being run and managed by Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Pipariya. On 13/5/2022, an FIR in Crime No.179 of 2022 has been registered against applicants on the written complaint/correspondence of the SDO (Revenue) dated 13/5/2022 submitted by Junior Supply Officer, Isagarh. As per the complaint, it was alleged that the Naib Tahsildar and Junior Supply Officer visited the fair price shop, and the shop was found closed. Thereafter, applicant No.2 was called and physical inspection of the shop was carried out. During physical inspection, the stock register was not produced, the notice board was not displayed and on physical verification 42 kilograms of rice and 536 kilograms of gram were found short. Accordingly, a request was made to register an FIR under Section 3 /7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Clauses 10(3)(4), 11(1)(3)(9), 13(1)(2), 15(4) and 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (for short “Control Order, 2015”).
3. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that a show-cause notice dated 9/5/2022 was issued by the SDO (Revenue), Isagarh to the applicants alleging violation of the Control Order, 2015. The said show-cause notice was duly replied by applicants denying contravention/violation of any of the conditions mentioned in the Control Order, 2015.
4. It is submitted that sub-clause (2) of Clause 14 of the Control Order, 2015 provides that in case of violation under Clause 13 for quantity more than 10% monthly allocation or repetition of violation under the same clause, a person shall mandatorily be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. However, it is submitted that there is no finding with regard to the shortage of more than 10%. It is submitted that the SDO (Revenue) had directed for registration of FIR without considering the defence of applicants, and accordingly, the opportunity of hearing should have been given to applicants before registration of FIR.
5. It is submitted that the police has also filed a charge sheet. It is further submitted that as per the Control Order, 2015, an FIR can be lodged only on the report of the Collector, which has not been done, and accordingly, not only the FIR but even the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
7. The main question for consideration is as to whether the FIR can be lodged only on the recommendation of the Collector or not?
8. The aforesaid question is no more res integra.
9. This Court, by order dated 19.01.2017, passed in the case of Jagdish Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. in MCRC No. 2643/2011 (Gwalior Bench), has held that in the absence of the word "only" it cannot be said that no other person can put the criminal investigating agency into motion except the Collector and it has been held as under:
Thus, it is clear that the insertion/addition of word “Only” in Clause 11.5 of M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order
