Subhash Chander vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Subhash Chander has filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the police report Annexure P. 5 in F.I.R. No. 31 dated 13.4.1988 registered at Police Station Ahmadgarh, orders Annexure P/6 and Annexure P/7, chargesheet Annexure P/8 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

The case was registered against the petitioner and others on the basis of a letter sent by Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur to Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, read with Clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control JUDGMENThri Daljit Singh Grewal, Fertilizer Inspector had drawn a sample of Chilatediron from the premises of M/s Jagdish Chander Rameshwar Dass, dealer firm of Ahmadgarh on 24.6.1987 and the sample was sent to Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. On analysis sample was found nonstandard. During investigation statements of various witnesses were recorded and ultimately challan was not filed against the dealer as well as manufacturer, but challan was presented in the Court of Special Judge against partners of the distributor firm. The petitioner, who is one of the partners of distributor firm, namely, M/s. B.M. & Brothers, Shastri Market, New Court Road, Jalandhar filed the present petition raising various grounds but his main contention was that since no charge had been framed against the firm nor the firm was arraigned as an accused he could not be chargesheeted for any offence committed by the firm.

In the return filed by the respondent a preliminary objection was raised that earlier too Criminal Misc. No. 5846M of 1990 was filed by the petitioner for quashing proceedings in this very F.I.R. and also for quashing the order of framing charge and that petition was dismissed on 5.9.1991. Similar petition without any change of circumstances on the same grounds was not maintainable.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This fact is admitted that earlier also Subhash Chander had filed a petition for quashing this very F.I.R. and chargesheet but that petition was dismissed as the counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he will take all the pleas raised in the petition, in defence at trial. The present petition has been filed almost on the same grounds except that one additional ground has been raised that the distributor firm had not been arraigned as an accused. A perusal of the order Annexure P/7 shows that before the charge was framed by the Special Judge, Sangrur, arguments on charge were addressed and the Court charge sheeted the petitioner after fully applying its mind. Brij Mohan, Sunita Aggarwal and Kamlesh Rani coaccused of the petitioner were discharged by the same order. Since the petitioner was alleged to be incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm he was charge sheeted. The earlier petition for quashing was filed after charge had been framed against the petitioner and the additional ground which he has now raised could be raised by him at that time also. The petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke inherent powers of this Court time and again for quashing the same report and orders when there is no change in circumstances, simply by canvassing that he has now added another plea. The inherent powers are meant to be exercised with circumspection when there is reason to believe that process of law is being misused to harass a person. The trial Court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and being primafacie satisfied chargesheeted the petitioner. The second petition under Section 482 CrPC is not entertainable and is dismissed on this ground alone.