In a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging misappropriation of food grains under the Public Distribution System, the High Court held that prima facie the petitioner was not wrongly arraigned. Thus, no case for interference was made out, and the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(9) wp-305.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.305 OF 2017
Savarmal Sitaram Parekh : Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. : Respondents.
Mr. Sharad S Suryavanshi for the Petitioner. Dr. F R Shaikh, Addl. PP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 12th APRIL 2018
P.C.
1 The above Writ Petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR being LAC No.145 of 2015 registered by the Food Grains Inspector with R.C.F. Police Station, Mumbai on 08/10/2015 for the offences under Sections 3, 7, 8 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act; Clauses 3(a), 4, 5 and 8 of the Maharashtra Food grains Rationing (Second) Order, 1966; clauses 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bombay Rationing Area Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1986; Conditions No.10 of License; Sections 6(4), (7), (1) of Section 9 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001; Section 3(1) of Central Food Safety Act, 2013.
2 The Petitioner was running a fair price shop and was distributing food grains under the Public Distribution System of the Government of Maharashtra. The gravamen of the allegations against the Petitioner is the
1 of 2
lgc
(9) wp-305.17
misappropriation of food grains to the extent of the quantity mentioned in the FIR in question. It is alleged against the Petitioner that in the home inquiry at the card holders' residence it was revealed that there has been misappropriation in respect of 88 households who are availing of food grains under the Public Distribution System. The extent of the misappropriation is mentioned in a table which is reproduced in the FIR.
3 Having regard to the contents of the FIR in question, we do not deem this a fit case to exercise our writ jurisdiction as prima facie it cannot be said that the Petitioner has been wrongly arraigned as an accused for the offences which are mentioned in the FIR in question. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
[SARANG V. KOTWAL, J] [R.M.SAVANT, J]
2 of 2
lgc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether it is a fit case to exercise writ jurisdiction to quash the FIR as the petitioner was wrongly arraigned as an accused.
Savarmal Sitaram Parekh
The State of Maharashtra
R. M. Savant
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
