VYAS, J. - (1.) INSTANT criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing FIR No.109/2010, registered at Police Station Thanwala (District Nagaur) for allegedly committing offences under Sections 420 and 272, I.P.C., read with Secvtions 52, 53A, 63 and 68 of the Copy Rights Act and Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner is challenging the said FIR on the ground that no FIR can be registered under Sections 7/16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act upon the complaint filed by the Enforcement Inspector of the Supplies Department. Such FIR can be filed by the Food Inspector only and as per Section 11 of the Preveniton of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The said Food Inspector is required to follow the procedure for taking sample of the food article for analysis and, after analysis, if it is found that the commodity is adulterated, then, cognizance can be taken under Section 20 of the Act of 1954; but, here in this case, the FIR has been registered upon the complaint made by the Enforcement Inspector of the Supplies Department which is totally illegal. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Patna High Court reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 2311, Yamuna Sah & others vs. State of Bihar. Further, it is submitted that upon perusal of the FIR no case for commission of offence under Sections 420 and 272, I.P.C. is made out. Likewise, no case under the Copy Rights Act is made out, therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment of the Patna High Court reported in 2006 Cri. L.J. 3535, Kripa Shankar & Another vs. State of Bihar & Another, in which, it is held that for institution of prosecution the Food Inspector is required to follow the procedure under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Further, prosecution initiated without report of the Public Analyst is not permissible under the law, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned FIR may be quashed. Following FIR has been registered against the petitioner upon the complaint made by the Enforcement Inspector which reads as under : JUDGEMENT_1591_RAJLW2_2011Image1.jpg Upon perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that this FIR has been registered not only for alleged offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 but it has been registered for commission of offence under Sections 420 and 272, I.P.C. read with Section 52, 53A, 63 and 68 of the Copy Rights Act, therefore, it cannot be said that the whole FIR which is registered against the petitioner for alleged offence is totally without jurisdiction. In my opinion, the petitioner's case does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down in the aforesaid judgment as follows : "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court to otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." After considering the above judgment of the apex Court, I am of the opinion that the ground with regard to taking cognizance by the Magistrate under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is premature because after investigation if challan will be filed by the police under Sec. 7/16 of the Act of 1954 along with other offences, then, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise his objection before the concerned Magistrate not to take cognizance against him on the bais of complaint of the Enforcement Inspector of Supplies Department. In my opinion, for other allegations levelled in the FIR regular investigation is necessary because the allegations are so serious for which the police authorities are under obligation to investigate the matter in proper manner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner's apprehension with regard to registration of the FIR by the Enforcement Inspector is premature because the investigation is going on and if, ultimately, it is found by the investigating authority that no offence is made out, then, obviously the investigating officer can file negative report; but, at this stage, I am not inclined to scuttle the investigation by quashing the FIR registered against the petitioner. Therefore, no case is made out for interference in exercise of power under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. Hence, this miscellaneous petition is hereby dismissed. ;