Veeresh S/O Shivrudrappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 5123 Kant

                                                  -1-
                                                         NC: 2023:KHC-D:8015
                                                         CRL.P No. 101411 of 2020




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023

                                                BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                                CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101411 OF 2020

                      BETWEEN:

                      VEERESH S/O SHIVRUDRAPPA BETAGERI,
                      AGE.40 YEARS, OCC. SECRETARY TAPCMS.
                      R/O TAPCMS KOPPAL, AT KOPPAL-583231.
                                                                     ... PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI. KUSHAL V BOLMAL & SRI. NAVEEN MELINAMANI, ADVS.)


                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           THROUGH STATE PROSECUTOR,
                           IN KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION,
                           KOPPAL-583231.

                      2.   MUTTANNA S/O DEVAPPA ELIGER,
VISHAL                     AGE. 29 YEARS,
NINGAPPA                    OCC. GOVT. OFFICIAL NON-GAZETTED,
PATTIHAL                   R/O. HULAGERI VILLAGE, KUSHTAGI
                           NOW AT BENDRENAGARM KOPPAL-583231.
Digitally signed by                                                ... RESPONDENTS
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Date: 2023.08.04      (BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)
10:52:48 +0530
                            THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
                      SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
                      QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CRIME NO.93/2020
                      (FIR NO.83/2020) DATED ON 22/09/2020 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.
                      CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND CJM COURT, KOPPAL LODGED BEFORE
                      THE KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE
                      PUNISHABLE U/S 34, 420 OF IPC, KOPPAL PRODUCED AT DOC NO.1
                      AND 2.
                                   -2-
                                           NC: 2023:KHC-D:8015
                                           CRL.P No. 101411 of 2020




     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                          ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.2 is before this Court calling

in question the registration of FIR in Crime No.93/2020 (FIR

No.83/2020) by the Koppal Town Police Station against him

for an offence punishable under Section 420 rad withSection

34 of IPC.

2. Both the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent No.1-State in unison would submit that the

issue in lis sands covered by the judgment rendered by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Criminal Petition

No.11109/2012 dated 20th October 2016, the Co-ordinate

Bench has held as follows:

"2. Sri.Rajashekhar Burji, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that even if the entire case of the prosecution is to be accepted, no offence has been made out against the petitioner so far as Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. Even assuming that the case of the prosecution is to be accepted, at the most, he may be liable for the offences punishable under the provisions of the specific Acts but certainly not under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, initiation

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8015 CRL.P No. 101411 of 2020

of proceedings is an abuse of process of the Court.

3. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader disputes the same.

4. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. The report obtained by the prosecution would indicate that the fertilizers being manufactured are in terms of the standards as specified. However, the allegation against the petitioner is that the same is not as per the standards specified in the Fertilizer Control Order. Even if the case of the prosecution is to be accepted, even if there are violations under the said Order, the same would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The provision of Section 420 of IPC would be alien to the facts and circumstances involved in this case. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of process of the Court. Hence, the proceedings requires to be quashed. However, quashing of the proceedings would not come in the way of the prosecution to initiate such proceedings as is available to them in law."

3. In the light of the issue being covered by the

aforesaid judgment, the following order.

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8015 CRL.P No. 101411 of 2020

(ii) FIR in Crime No.93/2020 (FIR No.83/2020)

registered by the Koppal Town Police Station so far as the

petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, is quashed.

(iii) Quashing of the proceedings will not come in the

way of the prosecution to initiate such proceedings as is

available in law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

kmv Ct:Bck