(Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNS, to call for the records in Crime No. 64/2026 pending investigation on the file of respondent police and quash the same as illegal and thus render justice.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No.64 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police, seeking to quash the First Information Report registered against him for the alleged offences under Clause 4(1)(b) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order") read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. The case of the prosecution, as culled out from the First Information Report, is that the first respondent police received a complaint from the Special Deputy Tahsildar at about 11.00 a.m. on 16.03.2026, stating that 107 empty LPG cylinders were found in the premises belonging to the petitioner and were seized. The petitioner is running a private gas agency in the name and style of "R.R. & Co." It is alleged that the petitioner did not possess any licence for storage of empty cylinders, and that he failed to produce any record to establish that he is a distributor.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a sub-distributor of Go Gas, Star Gas and Total Gas. The distributorship with Star Gas and Total Gas is still subsisting. Insofar as Go Gas is concerned, the distributorship came to an end in the year 2022, and 68 damaged cylinders belonging to that company remained in the petitioner's custody, since Go Gas did not take them back owing to their damaged condition, even after the expiry of the dealership. Hence, it was contended that mere possession of empty and damaged cylinders would not attract the penal provisions invoked, and the learned counsel prayed for quashing of the First Information Report.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent would submit that, though the petitioner holds a dealership with Star Gas and Total Gas, his dealership with Go Gas had admittedly expired, and he was found in possession of 68 cylinders without any licence or subsisting distributorship. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has committed the offences alleged. It was further contended that the plea of the petitioner that the said 68 cylinders were in a damaged condition is only an afterthought, and the same is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in a petition for quashing.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The points that arise for consideration in this petition are, whether the possession of the empty cylinders seized from the petitioner's premises would attract Clause 4(1)(b) or Clause 7(1)(c) of the Order, and whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

7. A reading of Clause 4(1)(b) of the Order would make it clear that what is prohibited thereunder is the transportation or storage of a cylinder filled with liquefied petroleum gas in any position other than an upright position. In the case on hand, even according to the allegations in the First Information Report, the seized cylinders were empty and were not filled with gas. That being so, Clause 4(1)(b) of the Order has no application to the facts of the present case.

8. Clause 7(1)(c) of the Order prohibits any person, other than a distributor or a consumer, from being in possession of a filled or empty cylinder, a gas cylinder valve or a pressure regulator. Out of the 107 cylinders seized, 33 empty cylinders belong to Star Gas and 6 empty cylinders belong to Total Gas. The distributorship agreements of the petitioner with these two companies are subsisting even as on date, and copies of the said agreements have been placed before this Court. Since the petitioner is a distributor of these companies, his possession of the said 39 empty cylinders is lawful, and the same cannot be said to be in violation of Clause 7(1)(c) of the Order.

9. Insofar as the remaining 68 cylinders of Go Gas are concerned, the distributorship of the petitioner with that company was for a period of five years, from 09.02.2017 to 08.02.2022. Thus, the distributorship had expired about four years prior to the registration of the First Information Report. The specific stand of the petitioner is that he was constrained to retain these cylinders as Go Gas did not take them back after the expiry of the dealership, on the ground that they were damaged. Though this aspect is disputed by the respondents, it is seen from the records that the investigating agency itself addressed a communication dated 31.07.2026 to the management of Go Gas, seeking its response regarding the disposal of the damaged cylinders, and no reply has been received from them till date. The fact that Go Gas has not chosen to take back its own cylinders for nearly four years after the expiry of the dealership would, by itself, lend credence to the stand of the petitioner that the cylinders are in a damaged condition.

10. Clause 2(c) of the Order defines a "cylinder" as a metal container used for storing liquefied petroleum gas, conforming to the specifications laid down in Schedules II and III to the Order. It follows that a metal container which has been damaged and which no longer conforms to the specifications prescribed in Schedules II and III, and which therefore cannot be used for storing liquefied petroleum gas, would not fall within the definition of "cylinder" under the Order. Consequently, possession of such empty and damaged metal containers would not attract the prohibition contained in Clause 7(1)(c) of the Order.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the petitioner continues to be a distributor of Star Gas and Total Gas under subsisting agreements, and that the remaining containers in his possession, being damaged, do not fall within the definition of "cylinder" under the Order. Even if the allegations in the First Information Report are taken at their face value, no offence is made out against the petitioner. Permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would, therefore, amount to nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

12. In the result, the First Information Report in Crime No.64 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police stands quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.