IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 750 of 2015

AMRIT SINGH

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate alongwith Ms. Deepti Manjhi

- Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.

ORDER Tehsildar and other revenue officials, conducted a search at the house of the petitioner. During the search, one drum containing approximately half quantity of kerosene and one white plastic can of five litres capacity were allegedly found at the premises. On being asked to produce a valid licence for storage and sale of kerosene, none was produced. Consequently, the said kerosene was seized in the presence of Panch witnesses and its value was assessed at approximately ₹20,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an offence under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered against the petitioner and the trial is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the First Information Report registered at Crime No. 236/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as well as quashment of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the proceedings pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Bhind, in Case No. 515/2014 titled State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Amritlal.

Brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, are that the

petitioner was alleged to have illegally stored kerosene at his residence for the purpose of black-marketing. It is alleged that on receiving information from an informer, the police of Police Station Gormi, along with the

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents is contrary to law and deserves to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC. It is contended that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the prosecution has failed to mention any specific Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which is alleged to have been violated. In the absence of reference to a particular Control Order, no offence under Sections 3/7 of the Act is made out. It is submitted that contravention of a specific order issued under Section 3 is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 7 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Subhiya vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1979 SC 711, wherein it has been held that the safeguards provided under the Act are intended to protect the liberty of citizens and to prevent frivolous or ill-

founded prosecutions, and that initiation of prosecution without compliance of statutory requirements vitiates the proceedings.

It is further submitted that in Sushila Choudhary vs. State of U.P., reported in 1987 EFR 336, it has been held that where the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence, the High Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law. It is also submitted that this Court, in Hema Bhadouriya vs. State of M.P., reported in 2008 (1) EFR 198, and in Narottam Singh Tomer vs. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3882 of 2008, has categorically held that in the absence of mention of the violated Control Order, prosecution under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is unsustainable.

Learned counsel further contended that admittedly no kerosene was seized from the personal possession of the petitioner and he has been implicated merely on the assumption that he was the owner of the premises. Such presumption, in absence of any documentary evidence establish