Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1079 (MP)

Ram Jeevan Rai @ Chotu v. State of M. P.

2016-11-28

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2016
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC for quashing the FIR in Crime No.168/2016 registered by Police Station Daboh, District Bhind under sections 34 and 42 of M.P. Excise Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.7.2016 at about 7.30 p.m., an information was received that one lady is illegally selling the country made liquor in her shop. When the search was carried out in the shop, it was found that the co-accused had kept 40 quarters of country made liquor. The co-accused could not produce any license for the sale of the liquor. On interrogation, she disclosed her name as Smt. Kiran Kalar. She further stated that she has purchased the said liquor from the shop of the applicant. The co-accused was arrested and FIR was registered against the co-accused Smt. Kiran Kalar and the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a false FIR has been registered against the applicant. No investigation has been made against the applicant. The applicant is having a valid license issued by the Collector, District Datia to sell the country made liquor and the license is valid from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017. The applicant has been implicated on the information of co-accused. The applicant is a valid licensee, hence, no offence has been committed by the applicant as he has not breached any condition of license granted to him. Therefore, the prosecution of the applicant is bad and without any admissible evidence. Hence, prayed that the FIR registered against the applicant be quashed. The learned counsel also relied upon order dated 19.10.2016 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Gajendra Singh Bhadoria v. State of M.P. (Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.11870/2016), and submitted that on similar allegations the FIR has been quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that except the statement of the co-accused recorded under section 27 of Evidence Act, there is no other admissible evidence available against the applicant. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of (Annexure-B) FIR, it appears that co-accused Smt. Kiran Kalar has been apprehended by the police having found in possession of country made liquor and was not having any license. She had disclosed that liquor has been purchased from the shop of the applicant. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of (Annexure-B) FIR, it appears that co-accused Smt. Kiran Kalar has been apprehended by the police having found in possession of country made liquor and was not having any license. She had disclosed that liquor has been purchased from the shop of the applicant. 6. On behalf of the applicant, copy of the license has been filed which reveals that license has been granted by the Collector District Datia in favour of the applicant at Datia for retail sale of country made liquor from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017. Considering that applicant is having a valid license he has a right to sell the liquor even if it is assumed that co-accused has purchased the liquor seized from her possession, prima facie, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed any offence under sections 32 or 54 of M.P. Excise Act as there is no breach of any condition of the license granted in favour of the applicant. In such circumstances, the prosecution of the applicant certainly amount to a breach of process of law. Hence, it is fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court. Consequently, this petition is allowed. FIR registered at Crime No.168/2016 under sections 34, 42 of M.P. Excise Act at Police Station-Daboh, District-Bhind is hereby quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly.