Allowed

Smt Usha Devi and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Jun 2023Cr.M.P./1768/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings under IPC and the Essential Commodities Act against petitioners. The order held illegal because the Block Supply Officer who lodged the FIR lacked authorization from the State Government to conduct investigation.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings, including the order of cognizance dated 21.02.2014, under IPC and the Essential Commodities Act are quashed.

Smt Usha Devi and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1768 of 2014

¶2

Smt. Usha Devi 2. Smt. Jageshwari Devi @ Jogeshwari Devi ..... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party

¶3

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶5

-----For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. ------

¶6

06/ 22.06.2023 Heard Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 21.02.2014, by which, cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No. 63 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1173 of 2013, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Pakur.

¶7

The FIR was lodged on 26.10.2013 on the basis of the information of the informant Shashi Bhushan Singh, who is Block Supply Officer with Amrapara Police Station in which he has stated that an allegation was received against the DPS Dealer Durga Swayam Sahayata Samooh, in which, Smt. Usha Devi is President and Smt. Jageshwari Devi is the Secretary are distributing the rice of BPL Project against the name of dead persons. The informant further stated that he conducted an inquiry with SDO, Pakur and found that there were many irregularities in distribution of rice and the quantity of balance rice was not extract what it was shown in register.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. She submits that since the Specific Act is there, the penal provisions of IPC are not attracted. According to her the Block Supply Officer is not authorized to investigate the matter under the Essential Commodities Act and in view of Clause-10 of the said Act, only on the instruction of Central Government or by the State Government, the competent person can be authorized to investigate the matter. She further

¶9

-2-

¶10

submits that in several identical matters, this Court has interfered in the matters.

¶11

Clause 2(c) of the Act defines authority which means any authority not below the rank of Inspector of the State Government who is dealing in civil supply. Clause 10 of the Act envisages that an authority authorized by the State Government shall be competent to inspect or summon records or documents and shall conduct search and seizure. Therefore, an authority defined under Clause 2(c) of the Order has to be authorized by the State Government in terms of Clause 10 of the Order. Admittedly the Block Supply Officer, who had instituted the FIR had never been authorized by the State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her contention of the informant being not authorized by the State Government has referred to an order passed in W.P.(S) No.1326 of 2012 in the case of “ Krishnapada Aich v. State of Jharkhand”, 2022 SCC ONLine Jhar 1125 , wherein it has been held as

¶12

under:-

¶13

“In absence of any denial that the Block Supply Officer has never been authorized by the State Government, plea of the petitioner has to be accepted that any search and seizure made by the Block Supply Officer would be quite illegal. Furthermore, the case lodged on the basis of such search and seizure certainly gets vitiated.”

¶14

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 21.02.2014, by which, cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No. 63 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1173 of 2013, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Pakur, are hereby, quashed.

¶15

As such, this petition is disposed of.

¶16

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶17

Amitesh/-

Smt Usha Devi and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Usha Devi and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Agarwalla Alias Manish Kumar Agarwala Alias Manish Agarwal Vs Salini Agarwalla Alias Salini Agarwalla

Ajit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sanjay Kakkar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Babita Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anil Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.