Dismissed

Bijendra Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Oct 2023Cr.M.P./730/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal compromise case, the petitioner sought to quash the order of taking cognizance in a General Registration Case alleging offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Essential Commodities Act. The High Court found no illegality in the order and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking to quash the order of taking cognizance is dismissed.

Bijendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 730 of 2022

¶3

Bijendra Singh @ Bijendra Kumar Versus

¶4

.... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

2.Santosh Kumar .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. K. Agrawal, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. D. Agrawal, SPP

¶9

11/ 09.10.2023 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

1. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 17.07.2021 passed by learned SDJM, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No.1318 of 2021 arising out G.R. Case No.1318 of 2021 (arising out of Azadnagar P.S. Case No.139 of 2020) whereby and whereunder learned court below took cognizance under Sections 414 /34 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶11

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant Cr. M. P. quashing the offence only under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is only pressed.

¶12

3. The ground of challenge of order taking cognizance is on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab passed in Criminal Appeal No.1711 of 2011 wherein it has been held in Para 13 that Sub Inspector of Police was not empowered to take action as also mentioned under Clause 13 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000, under which it empowers officer of the Central Government or State Government not below the rank of Inspector duly authorized by General or Special order by the Central Government or the State Government to stop and search any vessel or vehicle used or capable of being used or for the transport or storage of any petroleum product.

¶13

4. Per contra, learned SPP for the State refers to Para-11 of the counter-affidavit wherein a specific stand has been taken that the informant was the Marketing Officer, but was authorized and to make such search and seizure. The notification of the State Government dated 13.12.2005 is also produced before the Court under which all the marketing officers have been authorized to conduct such search and seizure.

¶14

5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

¶15

The instant Cr. M. P. is dismissed.

¶16

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶17

Sandeep/ Uploaded

Bijendra Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijendra Singh 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

Dr Bhoomika Sachacher Vs Union of India through Director General of Health Services

Sanjay Tandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Tandon Alias Pradeep Tandon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Kant Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shivdutt Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand