IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54301 of 2021 ASHOK SINGH RAGHUWANSHI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arvind Dudawat - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Rahul Jha -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Anjali Gyanani - PL for the respondents/State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the First Information Report registered as Crime No. 621/2020 at Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, along with quashment of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner was serving as the Branch Manager of the Ware Housing Corporation, Raghogarh, District Guna. One Ashok Chaturvedi, the then Junior Supply Officer, Raghogarh, conducted a spot inspection of godowns No. 2, 3, and 4 as directed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raghogarh. During the inspection, he found a total of 13 bags of gram, weighing 6.5 quintals, in excess of the recorded stock—37 bags in godown No. 2, 5063 bags in godown No. 3, and 1259 bags in godown No. 4. It is alleged that the petitioner failed to maintain proper records and illegally sold government-procured gram. Upon the inspection, Ashok Chaturvedi submitted a report to the S.D.O. (Revenue), who directed the registration of an FIR against the petitioner. Based on this complaint, a criminal case (Crime No. 0621/2020) was registered against the petitioner and others for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution contends that the petitioner, as the Branch Manager, was responsible for the alleged irregularities in the stock of gram and the purported unauthorized sale, despite there being other types of grain stored in the same godowns which could have led to discrepancies. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR has been registered mechanically, without proper verification of facts and without appreciating the legal requirements necessary to constitute the alleged offences. The inspection was conducted without the petitioner’s presence, and other commodities stored in the same godowns could have caused discrepancies in the stock. There is no material linking the petitioner to any alleged sale, and the FIR is based purely on surmises and conjecture. It is further submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, the dispute remains purely civil and departmental in nature. The grievance pertains to non-maintenance of records, which may at best give rise to departmental or civil action and do not constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. It is further submitted that a sine qua non for attracting Section 409 IPC is entrustment of property in the capacity of a public servant and dishonest misappropriation thereof and the FIR is completely silent on any specific act of entrustment of Government property to the petitioner in his personal capacity. The allegation is that the petitioner illegally sold gram procured for the Government. However, the facts show that during the spot inspection of godowns, only excess bags of gram were found, and there is no evidence of any unauthorized sale. The mere finding of extra bags in the warehouse does not constitute misappropriation or criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, no offence