| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 5876
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : CRL OP No. 21148 of 2026 & Crl.MP. No. 14075 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY |
| Parties : M/s. Star Global Private Limited, Rep by Its Director B.Murali, Chennai Versus The State rep by the Inspector of Police Civil Supplies (CID), Thiruvallur & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: N.R. Anantha Rama Krishnan, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1, M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side). |
| Date of Judgment : 05-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 528 of BNSS
- Order 7, 19(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985
- Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955
- Schedule‑II of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985
- State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604)
2. Catch Words:
FIR, quash, essential commodities, procedural violation, investigation, hoarding, industrial use, agricultural use
3. Summary:
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 218 of 2026 on the ground that the urea seized was for industrial resin production, not agricultural use, and that mandatory procedures under the Essential Commodities Act and Fertilizer (Control) Order were not complied with. The petitioner highlighted lack of quantity details, non‑issuance of Form‑J, and alleged non‑conformity with Schedule‑II. The Government argued that procedural requirements were met and that factual disputes must be resolved during investigation. The Court held that the FIR is a preliminary step to ascertain facts and cannot be set aside for alleged procedural lapses at this stage. The petitioner may raise substantive defenses later. Consequently, the petition to quash the FIR was rejected.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in Crime No.218 of 2026 pending on the file of the 1st Respondent and Quash the same and pass such further or other orders.)
1. The prayer in this Criminal Original Petition is to quash the FIR in Crime No.218 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent Police.
2. On a perusal thereof, it is registered for the alleged violation of Order 7, 19(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 and thus, complaining an offence under Section 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The crux of allegations is that upon inspection of the petitioner’s premises, they found the neem coated urea which is used for agricultural purposes was hoarded in the petitioner’s premises. The case of the petitioners is that they are manufacturers of Resin, for that purpose also they import a particular type of urea. They have full documents for due importation of the same. The urea, which is found in their premises is certainly not the one which is meant for agricultural use but it is only for industrial use for Resin production and it is prilled technical grade urea to be used for the purpose. The second ground of attack is that even the complaint does not say about the quantity of the sample that is taken. The third ground of attack is that the Form-J, one copy of which is supposed to have been handed over to the petitioner was not handed over at the time of seizure. Only the seizure Mahazar copy alone is handed over to them and the quantity of sample drawn is also not mentioned.
3. The learned counsel would further submit that every aspect of the mandate as laid down under the Essential Commodities Act and the Schedule-II of the Fertilizer (Control) Order has not been followed in the instant case. The learned counsel would rely upon certain judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court where the court has interfered with the first information report on the ground of violation of these mandatory procedure.
4. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and heard the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) also.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the mandatory procedures are being followed by the respondents.
6. The fact whether it is a urea meant for agricultural produce or for industrial produce and it is imported directly by the petitioner from China will come out only during the investigation. We are on the stage of the registration of the case and the investigation is being proceeded. The contention is factual in nature and as such cannot be taken as an incontrovertible fact at this stage. The FIR cannot be interfered with reference to the violations of procedure. Firstly, whether there was violation of procedure at all has to be decided and secondly, whether a violation of a particular aspect of a procedure would automatically entitle the quashment of entire case or not has to be decided. Therefore, the prayer to quash the FIR on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory procedures etc., cannot be considered. The same would on the other hand, be grounds to attack the final report in the manner known to law or to be raised during the course of the trial. The first information report is registered only to commence the investigation and ascertain whether or not the petitioner hoarded the urea which is meant for farmers, which is imported on subsidy from the Government. Prima facie, it is stated that there were materials upon inspection and the respondent officials are proceeding further with the investigation. Therefore, the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not grounds falling within the contours of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) so as to interfere at the FIR stage itself.
7. Keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to raise all the grounds at the appropriate stage, the prayer to quash the FIR stands rejected. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
|
| |