1 2025:CGHC:58502-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3668 of 2025 1 - Subhash Jaiswal S/o Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 62 Years R/o Old High Court Road Shankar Bhawan, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt.- Bi- laspur C.G. 2 - Lav Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Lalla Ram Yadav Aged About 38 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Dindayal Yadav In The Impugned Order), R/o Kekti Rajpur, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned As Deendayal Yadav Gali Mangla, Thana Civil Line, Distt. Bilaspur C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Civil Lines, Distt- Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Food Inspector, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.12.2025 1 Heard Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.03 15:13:16 +0530 2 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “(i) Quash and set aside the cognizance order dated 24.03.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 13513/2025 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodity Act, (ii) Quash and set aside the Final Report bearing No. 222/2025 dated 28.03.2025 filed by Police Civil Lines, District- Bilaspur (C.G) before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur (C.G.) in Crime No. 1278/2024 for offence punishable under Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodity Act, 1955. (iii) Quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the Crime No. 1278/2024 for offence punishable under Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodity Act, 1955 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, Distt - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 13513/2025. (iv) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to secure the interest of justice.” 3 Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned prosecution is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts. He submits that the allegations levelled in the memorandum dated 23.12.2024, as well as in the subsequent 3 Final Report, do not disclose any ingredients constituting an offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is further submitted that the petitioners are authorised distributors of Indane LPG and have never indulged in any act of hoarding, black-marketing or unauthorised distribution of domestic LPG cylinders. He further submits that the entire case of the prosecution is founded upon a misconceived assumption arising out of the accidental fire incident dated 15.12.2024 at Baldau Kitchen Care, Chantidih, Sarkanda, which, even as per the material collected, bears no nexus with any alleged act of the petitioners. The statement of the shop owner, Shri Baldau Sahu, only indicates that a domestic cylinder had been procured from the distributor, which by itself does not constitute any violation of the LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. 4 Mr. Thomas submits that the alleged inspection at the premises of co-accused Lav Kumar Yadav, even if taken at face value, does not establish that any unauthorised distribution or storage was carried out by the petitioners. The material relied upon by the prosecution is vague, lacking in foundational facts, and fails to demonstrate any mens rea or overt act attributable to the petitioners so as to attract penal liability under the Essential Commodities Act. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and therefore, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned 4 Final Report dated 28.03.2025 as well as the cognizance order dated 24.03.2025. 5 On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the material collected during investigation clearly discloses the commission of offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He submits that the memorandum dated 23.12.2024 prepared by the Food Inspector, as well as the inspection conducted at the premises of co- accused Lav Kumar Yadav, reveal that a substantial number of domestic LPG cylinders were found stored and being distributed from an unauthorized location, which is in clear violation of Clauses 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of the LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. He further submits that the investigation demonstrates that the petitioners were regularly stocking 20–25 domestic gas cylinders at the said unauthorized premises and carrying out distribution from there, which is impermissible under law. He submits that the unauthorized sale of domestic LPG cylinders not only violates statutory obligations but also creates serious safety hazards. 6 Mr. Rai argues that the Final Report filed by the prosecution contains sufficient prima facie material to justify cognizance and further proceedings, and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has 5 rightly taken cognizance after due consideration of the case diary and other evidence. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to see whether a strong suspicion exists regarding the involvement of the accused, and detailed evaluation of the defence is neither permissible nor warranted. He therefore submits that the present petition seeking quashment of the Final Report and cognizance order is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and material available on record. 8 Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The scope of jurisdiction at this stage is limited, and the Court is only required to ascertain whether the impugned Final Report and the consequential cognizance order suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. 9 A careful examination of the case diary, the memorandum dated 23.12.2024, the inspection report, and the statements recorded during investigation reveals that the prosecution has collected prima facie material indicating violation of the provisions of the 6 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. The allegations relating to unauthorized storage and distribution of domestic LPG cylinders, as well as the circumstances emerging from the fire incident at Baldau Kitchen Care, constitute sufficient grounds for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence. 10 This Court is of the opinion that the contentions raised by the petitioners pertain to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the pre-trial stage and are matters to be tested during the course of trial. The petitioners shall have every opportunity to raise their defence and to contest the allegations before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. No infirmity, impropriety or manifest error is found in the cognizance order dated 24.03.2025 or in the Final Report dated 28.03.2025 warranting exercise of inherent or supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 11 Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as being devoid of merit. The petitioners, however, are at liberty to raise all permissible grounds available to them under law before the trial Court, which shall be considered on their own merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu