B.S.YADAV,J. - (1.) PARAMJIT Singh, petitioner, who is a partner of M/s. Sat Kartar Shellers, Solvent and Allied Mills, Khanna, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing First Information Report No. 7 dated 11th June, 1983, registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station City, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the petition, 1275 quintals of paddy relating to the crop of 1982-83 was stored in the premises of the Sheller by Markfed and was to remain in trust. Paddy was to be shelled by the Miller and the rice was to be delivered to the Food Corporation of India in Markfed account. In lieu of the above, the Sheller was to deliver 8136 quintals of rice of P.R. 106 quality at the rate of 67% and 243.77 quintals of rice of I.R. 8 quality at the rate of 69% respectively. However, the Sheller delivered only 4510 quintals of rice of P.R. 106 quality and the balance quantity of rice of the two qualities was not delivered to the Food Corporation of India, in the Markfed account. It was also alleged in the First Information Report that the Miller had disposed of the paddy stock and had thus misutilised the proceeds of the same and the Miller had committed breach of trust. The contention of the petitioner is that according to oral agreement between the parties, the Sheller was to make good the loss that might be incurred in paddy and rice during the transit or storage and in case of short-fall in the rice, the Sheller was to pay to the Markfed the cost of paddy equivalent to the shortfall at the rate of 1-1/2 times the economic cost of the paddy. On 4th January, 1983 fire broke out in the premises of the Sheller of the Firm and about 350 bags of paddy were burnt to ashes and the same number of bags became wet and damaged. On 17th May, 1983, the Firm wrote to the District Food and Supplies Officer, Ludhiana, requesting him to allow the Firm to deposit the value of short supply of rice.
(3.) ON the basis of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and, therefore, the First Information Report should be quashed. I am afraid, the above contention cannot be accepted. Investigations are still going on and during the investigations the petitioner can prove the agreement which might have entered into between the parties.;