Full Judgment Text
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 13 January, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 6469/2023
KAMLESH
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP with
SI Himanshu.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioner herein seeks quashing of FIR No. 371/2014 dated
02.05.2014, registered at P.S. Najafgarh, Delhi, under Section 7 of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. Petitioner is running a Fair Price Shop (FPS) under the name and style
of M/s Amit Provision Store in Ishwar Colony, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
3. A team from the Department of Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs
visited said shop on 01.05.2014 and noticed following discrepancies:-
(i) The Inspection team asked to furnish the current record of FPs
but the record were not inside the FPS.
(ii) The stock was physically checked and found 7.74 Qtls of rice
and FPS but as per stock record for the month of April 2014. The
balance stock of rice was nil. Thereby an excess of 7.74 Qtls. rice in
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6469/2023 1
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:15.01.2026
09:58:01
the FPs. The SFA is not received during the month of April 2014 to
01.05.2014.
4. The abovesaid discrepancies resulted in registration of FIR No. 371/2014
under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with P.S. Najafgarh,
Delhi as the licensee had violated the provisions of Delhi Specified Articles
(Regulation & Distribution) Order 1981/ Delhi Kerosene oil (Exports &
Price) Order 1962 and the terms and conditions under which the
license/authorization was issued.
5. Petitioner was released on anticipatory bail.
6. Admittedly, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court
way back in the year 2015 and the trial is still going on.
7. As per the learned counsel for petitioner, the material witnesses could
not be examined, for want of case property which is not available.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that after the
abovesaid irregularities and discrepancies were pointed out by the
enforcement team of the Department of Food and Supplies, a show-cause
notice was issued to the petitioner and she submitted comprehensive reply and
presented the entire record. She clarified that on account of heavy rush, the
signatures of each of the card holders were not obtained. As regards the
alleged excess quantity of rice, she replied that the said stock was not, in fact,
rice but waste grains which comprised of wheat, rice and dust, which was not
meant for distribution and sale to the card-holders and had rather being kept
aside, as waste.
9. After her reply was furnished, a door-to-door survey of all the 187
card-holders was carried out and all such card holders, barring ten, were found
residing at the given addresses and have also given statements regarding
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6469/2023 2
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:15.01.2026
09:58:01
receiving Specified Food Articles (SFAs)/Ration timely.
10. The survey also revealed that there was no issuance of SFA to the other
ten card holders, who were not even registered under National Food Security
Portal.
11. Fact remains that keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances
of the case and the aforesaid survey and also in view of the larger public
interest, the Competent Authority took decision to restore the
license/authorization of the petitioner thereby virtually absolving the
petitioner.
12. It is in the abovesaid backdrop that the present petition has been filed
which seeks quashing of FIR, also for the reason that the criminal case is
pending against the petitioner for more than a decade, now. Learned counsel
for petitioner also relies upon Sachin Goel vs State in Crl. M.C. 3251/2014
dated 20.04.2015 and Sunni Kadian vs State: 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10321
wherein on the basis of restoration of the license, this Court had quashed the
criminal proceedings.
13. When asked, learned APP for the State, on instructions, intimated that
the provisional store in question is still being run by the same petitioner and
there is no further reported infraction or violation by her.
14. Admittedly, the abovesaid act of restoration of license cannot be
disregarded and side-lined. This Court is also conscious of the fact that during
last ten years, there is no further complaint from the Fair Price Shop in
question.
15. The order of the Competent Authority which resulted in the restoration
of license was never challenged by the concerned Department and has already
attained finality.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6469/2023 3
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:15.01.2026
09:58:01
16. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, FIR No. 371/2014 dated
03.05.2014, registered at P.S. Najafgarh, Delhi, under Sections 7/10/55
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 along with all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom, is hereby, quashed.
17. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2026 /sw/js
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6469/2023 4
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:15.01.2026
09:58:01