- (1.) THE petitioner through the present criminal miscellaneous application seeks to have the First Information Beport No. 225/74 dated 27-4-1974 lodged fay the Food and Supplies Controller,. Amritsar, quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the facts stated therein do -not disclose any offence including the one alleged. The said F. I. R. is in the following terms : A permit was issued in favour of "the Executive Engineer vide Permit No. 374/386 dated 15-3-1974 in favour of Shri Balwant Singh, Brick-kiln Owner, Ha-raidpura. The Executive Engineer vide his letter No. 172 dated 15-8-1974 informed us that the Brick-kiln Owner refused to supply him the bricks. After this, Inspector, Food and Supplies, Shri R. K. Goel, along with Shri Gurcharan Singh, Overseer, went to the kiln. Nobody was present there. Shri Netter Pal, who is told to be a partner of kiln, refused to supply the bricks when they went to his house. The Brick-kiln Owner has violated Clauses 9, 10 and 11 of the Punjab Control of Bricks Supply Order, 1972. A copy of the directions were sent +o the Superintendent of Police vide Memo. No. 72/30092 dated 15-5-1972 issued undej the Punjab Control of Bricks Supply Order, 1972, issued under Section 3 of the East Punjab Control of Bricks Supply Order, 1949. It is requested that a case be registered and necessary action taken. Today 26-4-1974 vide D. S. P. tetter No. 74/1254 dated 22-3-1974 a case is being registered and papers be sent under Section 3 of the Punjab Control of Bricks Supply Order, 1949. Mr. Bhal Singh Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Civil Writ No. 1474 of 1972 (Punj and Har) (M/s. Chhaju Ram Babu Ram v. State of Punjab) decided on 14-12-1973, has agu-ed that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Director, Food and Supplies, or the District Magistrate to issue permits to the Government Departments and Semi-Government Organisations for bricks under Clause (9) of the Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies Order, 1972, and hence the petitioner by refusing to supply bricks against the permit referred to in the F. I. R. did not commit any offence, as alleged.
(2.) MR. T. N. Bhalla, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand argued that if for a moment it is conceded that the facts stated in the F. I. R. did not disclose any offence, even then the High Court would not be competent to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to Q-uash the F. I. R, and for his submission above-said, he drew sustenance from a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Saral Beopar Association Ltd. , Jagadhri v. State of Haryana, ILR 1971 (2) punj and Har 513.
(3.) BEFORE dealing with the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is in the first instance necessary to see as to whether the applicant lias made out a case to the effect that the facts stated in the F. I. R. do not disclose any offence.;