JUDGMENT 1. The facts reveal that the complainant Mallikarjun a resident of Tegginakeri village, submitted a complaint against accused No.1 to the police for the offences punishable under Section 285 and 336 IPC and also under Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is alleged that on 17.5.2005 at about 10.30 a.m. when the complainant was in his house, he heard an explosion sound from the house of the petitioners and when he went inside their house, he found the 1st petitioner having sustained burns and there were as many as six gas cylinders and while transmitting the gas from big gas cylinder to the small cylinders the fire accident had taken place, and the 1st petitioner and others sustained injuries. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner had no authority to stock six gas cylinders and two small cylinders. In the circumstances, the complaint for the aforesaid offences was lodged and it came to be registered in Crime no.94/2005 by Koppal Police. It is the registration of FIR that has been challenged by the petitioners by way of this petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned HCGP. 4. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the complainant had no authority to lodge a complaint for the aforesaid offences as he is not an aggrieved person. Therefore, he makes a request to quash the proceedings registered against them. 5. The learned HCGP submits that the police were justified in registyering the complaint for the aforesaid offences as the complainant is also an aggrieved person. 6. On this question, the provision of Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (herein after called as ‘the EC Act, 1955’ for short) are relevant. The said provision is extracted hereunder. “11. 5. The learned HCGP submits that the police were justified in registyering the complaint for the aforesaid offences as the complainant is also an aggrieved person. 6. On this question, the provision of Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (herein after called as ‘the EC Act, 1955’ for short) are relevant. The said provision is extracted hereunder. “11. Cognizance of offences: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the fact constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Indian penal Code (35 of 1860).” As could be seen from the above said provision, a complaint has to be filed of the facts which constitute an offence and it must be by a public servant as defined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code or by any person aggrieved or any recognized consumer association, whether such a person is a member of that association or not. 7. It is not in dispute that the complainant is not a public servant and so far as the definition of ‘aggrieved person’ is concerned, it is not defined under the provision of the EC Act, 1955, and as could be seen from the meaning in the dictionary, the expression “aggrieved person” means a person who has got a legal grievance i.e. a person is wrongly deprived of anything to which he is legally entitled and not merely a person who suffered some sort of disappointment. Such a person must have special or particular interest in the subject matter other than the general interest. The complainant is none other than the neighbour of the petitioners and it is after hearing the sound of explosion, he went inside the house and saw the incident and thereafter submitted a complaint to the police. He does not fall within the purview of an ‘aggrieved person’ and therefore, had no competency to lodge the complaint for the offences punishable under Section 3 and 7 of the EC Act, 1955. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 285, 336 IPC are concerned, they are cognizable offences. He does not fall within the purview of an ‘aggrieved person’ and therefore, had no competency to lodge the complaint for the offences punishable under Section 3 and 7 of the EC Act, 1955. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 285, 336 IPC are concerned, they are cognizable offences. Any person can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint and therefore, I am of the opinion that so far as the registration of FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 285 and 336 IPC are concerned, it cannot be quashed. But the police authorities have no authority to investigate into the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the EC Act, 1955, as the complaint is not filed by an aggrieved person or by public servant. To this extent, the FIR has to be quashed. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. Registration of the FIR in Crime No.94/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the EC Act, 1955, is quashed. The police are at liberty to investigate into the offence punishable under sections 285 and 336 IPC.