Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1058 (JHR)

Susharma Singh Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2011-12-02

PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
ORDER By the Court.-Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that F.I.R. dated 13.12.2010 was lodged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 but without disclosing under which of the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act the offence has been committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that there are several decisions of this Court wherein the F.I.Rs. lodged only under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act have been quashed on the ground that the F.I.R. must disclose that which of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1955 have been violated. 2. I perused the two brief orders placed before me and annexed in the writ petition which are passed in W.P.(Cr.) No.108 of 2005 Ghanshyam Saw @ Ghanshyam Prasad v. State of Jharkhand & Others decided on 06.05.2005 and in W.P.(Cr.) No. 203 of 2005 Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Another decided on 13.07.2005. 3. It is a settled law that F.I.R. is not a complete compendium of the event and it can be brief information about the commission of offence whereunder investigation can be started, provided it is disclosed in the F.I.R. that some offence has been committed. 4. Be that as it may be, since there are several orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions, as has been indicated in the above two orders, this writ petition deserves to be allowed as the final order of the Coordinate Bench is binding upon the another Coordinate Bench and the criminal proceeding initiated, vide lodging F.I.R. dated 13.12.2010 being Tamar P.S. Case No. 126 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 5530 of 2010, is quashed. 5. A copy of this order be sent to the Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand who may place the same before the appropriate Secretary of the Department so that in future, proper care is taken while lodging the F.I.R. under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the officers and the guilty persons may not be spared because of the lapses on the part of the officers. It appears from the above referred two orders dated 06.05.2005 and 13.07.2005 that several F.I.Rs. have been quashed, in spite of it, the same procedure being adopted which cannot be appreciated and that too in a matter where there is allegation of violation of provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It appears from the above referred two orders dated 06.05.2005 and 13.07.2005 that several F.I.Rs. have been quashed, in spite of it, the same procedure being adopted which cannot be appreciated and that too in a matter where there is allegation of violation of provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Petition allowed.