Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1406 (PNJ)

Gopal Krishan v. State Of Punjab

2006-03-30

VIRENDER SINGH

body2006
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 76 dated 2.7.2002, under Sections 406, 408 IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act registered at Police Station Sadar Moga and other proceedings arising therefrom. Pursuant to the notice, reply has been filed by the State. 2. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the records. 3. Mr. Bhalla states that the petitioners are partners of firm M/s Amin Chand Madan Lal, Moga which is a rice sheller doing the business of shelling the paddy and supplying the rice in the market. Markfed Faridkot had entered into an agreement with the petitioner No. 1 on behalf of the firm for shelling of the paddy. According to Mr. Bhalla, the paddy was in the joint custody of the firm and the Markfed and it was stored in the mill premises. Some physical verification was conducted by the Markfed officials at two different stages upto the year 1997 and for some shortage, a case bearing FIR No. 20 dated 25.2.1998 was lodged with the Police Station Sadar Moga against the petitioners. Thereafter, the instant FIR was lodged on 2.7.2002, on the basis of the second physical verification conducted by the Markfed officials on 30.6.1997. The petitioners are stated to be on anticipatory bail in both the FIRs. 4. Mr. Bhalla states that on facts no case punishable under Sections 406 or Section 408 IPC of even under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioners for the reason that the property was in joint custody of the petitioners and the Markfed and therefore, it would at the most amount to breach of contract and not breach of trust. Even otherwise there is an arbitration clause in the agreement which can be enforced for the recovery of amount with regard to the shortage, if any. He then submits that the instant FIR is liable to be quashed on the principle of double jeopardy as it is settled law that no second FIR can be lodged for the same offence. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Bhalla submits that prior to the registration of the FIR No. 20 of 1998, which was registered on 25.2.1998, the second physical verification was already conducted by the Markfed officers on 30.6.1997. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Bhalla submits that prior to the registration of the FIR No. 20 of 1998, which was registered on 25.2.1998, the second physical verification was already conducted by the Markfed officers on 30.6.1997. If they had found any shortage of the bags, this all could be brought in the said FIR, which reflects the shortage pointed out at the time of first physical verification. Registration of the instant case after the lapse of more than four years in July, 2002, that too on the same facts is sheer abuse of the process of the law. 5. While relying upon the order of this Court passed in Crl. Misc. No. 19090-M of 2003 decided on 10.2.2004, in which this Court under almost the same set of circumstances, had quashed the proceedings on the basis of the judgment of Honble Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, AIR 2001 SC 2637 : 2001(3) RCR(Crl.) 436, Mr. Bhalla prays for the same relief. He tenders the photostat copy of the said order (taken on record and be tagged at its proper place). 6. The learned State counsel has not been able to dispute the legal position, but submits that two physical verifications have been conducted at two different stages and therefore, the registration of the second FIR in July, 2002, on the basis of the verification conducted in June, 1997 is not bad. 7. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. In Crl. Misc. No. 19090-M of 2003, on which Mr. Bhalla has relied very heavily, one FIR was already recorded in February 1999 with regard to the shortage of certain bags. The second FIR was lodged in July, 2002 with regard to second verification conducted in August, 1995. The admitted position was that before the registration of the first case the physical verification was already conducted and therefore, this Court while relying upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in T.T. Antonys case (supra), observed that both the cases are based on the identical verification and, therefore, there was no justification for lodging another FIR when the first FIR was already pending. The second FIR registered in July, 2002 was, thus, ordered to be quashed. The prosecution was, however, given liberty to file supplementary challan in the first FIR already pending. 8. The second FIR registered in July, 2002 was, thus, ordered to be quashed. The prosecution was, however, given liberty to file supplementary challan in the first FIR already pending. 8. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid Crl. Misc. No. 19090-M of 2003. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed. FIR No. 76 dated 2.7.2002, under Sections 406, 408 IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act registered at Police Station Sadar Moga and other proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that the prosecution will be at liberty to file any supplementary challan against the petitioners with regard to the shortage reflected in the registration of the instant case. Petition is disposed of accordingly.