Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 726 (PAT)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Bihar

2012-05-04

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT A.K. Singh, J.- Heard Mr. Sanjeet Deokuliar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has prayed for quashing of the FIR of Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 161 of 2006 instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The FIR is based on the written statement of the Block Supply Officer. Chiraiya given to the Officer-in-Charge of Chiraiya police station. The informant has alleged that on 8.12.2006 at about 8.30 a.m. a pick-up van loaded with 9 drums of kerosene oil containing 230 liters each was intercepted. The driver of the van fled away and one Saroj Kumar who was occupying the van in question was apprehended. Upon inquiry, he disclosed that the seized kerosene oil belonged to the petitioner and co-accused Shambhu Prasad. He could not produce any cash memo relating to the seized kerosene oil. Upon inquiry, he did not disclose the purpose for which the kerosene oil was being carried. The informant, thus alleges that 2070 liters kerosene oil belonging to the petitioner and one Shambhu Prasad was being carried for sell in the black-market On 8.12.2006 itself, a seizure list was prepared and pursuant to the information given to the police. Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 161 of 2006 was registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner and two others. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in the case. He has nothing to do with the seized kerosene oil or co-accused Saroj Kumar from whose possession the kerosene oil was seized or Shambhu Prasad another co-accused of the case whose name was also taken like the petitioner by the apprehended accused Saroj Kumar. 5. In my view, the payer cannot be allowed. It is well-settled that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule but is an exception. The exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice could be committed, if the prayer is not allowed. Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule but is an exception. The exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice could be committed, if the prayer is not allowed. If the FIR do not disclose commission of a cognizable offence against the accused, then the investigation commenced upon-such FIR is liable to be quashed. However, no such quashing of investigation could be made, if the FIR discloses prima facie commission of an offence by the accused. At this stage, defence of the petitioner cannot be looked into. If the allegation made in the FIR constitutes an offence the investigation has to be carried out. In the present case the FIR constitutes a cognizable offence and thus the same cannot be quashed. It is for the police to find out in course of investigation as to whether the allegation against the petitioner is true or not. This Court would not be Justified at this stage to look into the defence of the petitioner. 6. In that view of matter. I find no merit in this application and accordingly the same is dismissed. 7. It appears from the record that by order dated 12.7.2007 this Court had stayed further proceeding in Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 161 of 2006 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Sikrahna at Motihari. Since the application filed on behalf of the petitioner is dismissed the order of interim stay granted on 12.7.2007 stands vacated. Application dismissed.