*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This is petition under Section 528 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNSS’ only. By virtue of this petition, the quashing of order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P-1), hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’ only, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ludhiana, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, has been challenged.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that one FIR, i.e. FIR No.36 dated 31.05.2016, has been lodged in Police Station Jodhan, District Ludhiana (Rural). The abovementioned FIR has been lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 406 of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’ only.

3. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘District Manager, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, District Office, Ludhiana’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was reported by the above-named complainant that ‘the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘PSWC’ only, is a statutory organization and performs the function of procurement of food grains including ‘Paddy’ on behalf of Government of India. According to complainant, as per milling policy of the government, the ‘Paddy’ purchased by the ‘PSWC’ from the farmers used to be stored in the premises of the allotted rice mills for custom milling. As per complainant, by following the same policy an agreement dated 22.10.2009 was executed by the Miller, namely ‘M/s Mahadev Rice & General Mills’, Quila Raipur, District Ludhiana through its partners, namely ‘Gagandeep Jindal’ and ‘Amandeep’ on 22.10.2009.

4. The complainant further alleged that as per clause – 6 of the agreement the Miller was fully responsible for the safe custody of Paddy stocks entrusted to the Miller till the delivery of entire rice as per out-turn ratio fixed by the Government of India. It was also alleged by the complainant that as per Clause Nos.12(a) & 12(b) of the agreement the Miller was liable for criminal action in case of misappropriation, theft etc. of the stocks. According to complainant, 330735 bags in the packing of 35 Kgs. each of ‘Paddy’ were handed over to the above-mentioned Miller and stored in its premises, but later on a shortage in stock was detected and it was found that the Miller had misappropriated/stole a part of the stocked rice. It was further alleged by the complainant that instead of 13472.50 quintals, the weight of the stock was found to be 11726.158 quintals. Thus, showing the shortage of 1746.35 quintals.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned FIR, once the investigation was complete, the final report under Section 173 of CrPC was filed by the police in the Court for the purpose of trial.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that instant case is the classic example, wherein a liability which is purely a liability of civil nature, has been converted into a criminal case and by sheer misuse of authority the FIR with regard to allegations of misappropriation of stocks has been lodged. According to learned counsel for the petitioner there was an agreement between the complainant and the petitioner’s firm, namely ‘M/s Mahadev Rice & General Mills’, Quilla Riapur, District Ludhiana, and that as per agreement if the shortage of stocks was recorded, the only course available to the ‘PSWC’ was to recover the price of short stock of rice, but by projecting the shortage of stocks as misappropriation of food-grains, the FIR has been lodged. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the above-mentioned step of the respondent-PSWC is nothing, but sheer abuse of process of law.

8. According to learned counsel for the petitioner another relevant aspect to be taken into consideration is that before registration of FIR an inquiry was conducted by a senior police officer, i.e.