Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Through this application the petitioners seek the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 8.2.2007 passed by the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Ara in Charpokhri P.S. Case No. 115 of 2006, G.R. No. 3259/2006, whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the E.C. Act"). 3. The prosecution case is based on the written report dated 10.12.2006 submitted to the Officer Incharge, Charpokhri P.S. by one Mani Kant Mandal, Supply Inspector, Tararri Block, Camp Charpokhri. It is stated therein inter alia that he had come to Charpokhri under the directions of the S.D.O., Piro, where he received secret information regarding the dealers of Charpokhri indulging in black-marketing of wheat whereupon he alongwith others under the leadership of the S.D.O., Piro, reached near the mini godown of P.D.S. dealer Birendra Singh but as he could not be found the stock in his godown could not be verified. Thereafter, they allegedly raided the godown located in the house of Sachida Nand Singh where the godown owners Nand Kishore Singh and Kamla Singh were present. They claimed to be retail dealers of foodgrains in half and half partnership and admitted the godown to be theirs. The godown was searched in their presence and in the presence of three independent witnesses and in course thereof 214 bags of wheat each containing 50 Kgs. and 26 empty bags with the seal of Food Corporation of India were recovered. As no documents in connection therewith could allegedly be produced, the same was seized under a seizure list. Some other godowns were alleged to have been searched and rice and Kerosene oil apart from a truck loaded with bags of wheat were seized. 4. On the basis of the written report a case only against Birendra Singh and the two petitioners herein was registered. The police after due investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the two petitioners and on the basis thereof cognizance has been taken by the impugned order. 5. Section 7 of the E.C. Act deals with the persons who contravene any Order made under Sec. 3 of the E.C. Act but if there is no contravention of any Order, then, no criminal case can be launched against any person. 5. Section 7 of the E.C. Act deals with the persons who contravene any Order made under Sec. 3 of the E.C. Act but if there is no contravention of any Order, then, no criminal case can be launched against any person. The First Information Report does not disclose the nature of offence as to which of the Orders made under Sec. 3 of the E.C. Act had been violated. Therefore, the cognizance is bad in law and fit to be quashed. 6. It is well settled by now that if the First Information Report/Complaint does not disclose any offence, then the Court can quash the prosecution under its inherent jurisdiction. 7. In my view, this case is clearly one where allegations contained in the First Information Report do not constitute any specific offence. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate was clearly in error in taking cognizance against the petitioners herein. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order so far as the petitioners are concerned is quashed and the application is allowed.