Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by petitioner- Deepak Kumar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint dated September 27, 2000 filed under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with clause 19(1) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner. A copy of the aforesaid complaint has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition. 2. As per the averments made in the complaint a Fertilizer Inspector visited the premises of M/s. Ram Dev Rajesh Kumar, who were dealing in fertilizers on June 24, 2000 and drew a sample of fertilizer manufactured by M/s. Parkash Agro Industries, Shahabad District Kurukshetra. On the subsequent analysis of the aforesaid sample, the same was found to be sub-standard, therefore, the complaint in question was filed by him on September 27, 2000 arraying the aforesaid dealers, the present petitioner Deepak Kumar and the manufacturing concern M/s. Parkash Agro Industries, as the accused in the complaint. 3. The petitioner has challenged the filing of the complaint against him and continuation thereof, on the ground that in fact no averment whatsoever were made by the complainant against him in the complaint and it is only in the cause title of the complaint that he has been arrayed as an accused No. 4. It has further been averred in the present petition that on the relevant date, the petitioner was merely nominated as a nominee of the manufacturing concern M/s. Parkash Agro Industries under the provisions of clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and was not in any manner a person responsible for the management and control of the manufacturing concern. 4. Sh. Rakesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the complaint would show that no averment, whatsoever, has been made by the complainant in the complaint against the petitioner and so much so it has not been averred at all that he was a person who was responsible for the management and control of the manufacturing concern. 5. On the other hand, Sh. Rajbir Sehrawat, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana submitted that in fact this was a matter of evidence and at this stage it was wholly premature to suggest that the petitioner was not responsible for the management and the control of the manufacturing concern. 6. 5. On the other hand, Sh. Rajbir Sehrawat, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana submitted that in fact this was a matter of evidence and at this stage it was wholly premature to suggest that the petitioner was not responsible for the management and the control of the manufacturing concern. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. 7. I find that before any evidence is led by prosecution, it was essential for the complainant to specifically aver and state in the complaint that a person who was being accused of violation of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 was in any manner responsible for the management and control of the manufacturing concern. In the absence of any such averment the aforesaid person could not be arrayed as an accused in the complaint. Since in the present case no averment has been made against the petitioner, therefore, the question of leading any such evidence subsequently to prove the said fact would not arise. In these circumstances, I quash the complaint Annexure P-1 against the petitioner along with all consequential proceedings taken thereupon qua him. 8. However, the quashing of the complaint against the petitioner would have absolutely no bearing or any other effect upon the continuance thereof against the remaining co-accused. 9. Since the matter has remained pending for a sufficiently long time, the trial Magistrate is directed to expeditiously conclude the proceedings in the case against the remaining accused and conclude the same finally before December 31, 2003.