Smt. Ishwari Devi vs State of Rajasthan

Guman Mal Lodha, J.—This is a criminal miscellaneous petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing a charge against Smt. Ishwari Devi. The learned Counsel has argued that Smt. Ishwari Devi was never partner of the firm at the time when the inspection was done by the Inspector therefore her challan and also framing of the charge under the Essential Commodities Act should be quashed.

I have enquired from the learned Counsel whether for the relevant date on which the inspection was made there is any registration of the firm of that date or earlier date either with the Registrar of the firms or with the Income Tax Authority showing that Ishwari Devi has withdrawn as a partner.

Obviously there is none.

In view of the above the detailed enquiry whether on account of the partnership deed having been entered into afresh as alleged by the learned Counsel there was withdrawal of partner Ishwari Devi on relevant date would be enquired into by the trial court. Ishwari Devi will have full opportunity to lead evidence in defence and so also cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the relevant point.

I am convinced that there has been no abuse of process of the court nor interference u/s 482, Cr. P.C. is required in the justice, nor it is necessary for enforcing any of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

It is well known that the proceedings and the powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. are to be used sparingly. Obviously the present one is not a case of that extra ordinary nature.

Consequently the application is dismissed. The observations made above would not prejudice the decision of the trial court on the relevant question whether Ishwari Devi was a partner or not at the time when the inspection was done resulting in challan. It would be open to the trial court to have independent appreciation of the entire evidence and any observation made above would not prejudice the right of the parties.