Allowed

Shri. Raosaheb S/O Ramu Madar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2021CRL.P/101763/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Misc. Petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner to quash an impugned order of the JMFC, Banahatti, which issued summons to him merely by listing the designatory name mentioned in the complaint. The Court held that the order was without application of mind and against legal procedures.

What did the court decide?

The petition allowed; the order dated 16.3.2017 issued summons to petitioner is quashed. Liberty reserved to Complainant.

Shri. Raosaheb S/O Ramu Madar Vs the State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

¶5

CRL.P. NO.101763 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI. RAOSAHEB S/O RAMU MADAR AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE, BRANCH MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE CO-OP MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., BIJAPUR, R/O VIJAYPUR, TQ:VIJAYPUR, DIST:VIJAYPUR.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, SEEDS, FERTILIZERS & INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR, TERDAL. TALUK:JAMKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT.

¶12

SRI. N.M. PATEL AGE:46 YEARS, MANAGER (PRODUCTION & QUALITY CONTROL, POLY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES 153, ASHOK NAGAR, NIPPANI TQ:NIPPANI,

¶13

¶14

DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶15

SHOUKAR ALI S/O FAKIRSAB TAHASILDAR REGIONAL MARKETING MANAGER POLY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES NIPPANI, AGE:48 YEARS, TALUK:NIPPANI, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶16

THE MANAGER KSCMF LTD, BAGALKOT REP. BY SHRI. RUDRAGOUDA I. BIRADAR AGE:MAJOR.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1) (SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) (R4-ABATED)

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.3.2017 ANE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.496/2012 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDRE CLAUSE 19 (a)(b) OF F.C.O. 1985 AND PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(1)(ii) OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BANAHATI SOFARAS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

¶24

the petitioner is praying for quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No.496/2012 on the file of the learned JMFC, Banahatti for offences punishable under Clause 19 (a) & (b) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and under Section 7(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶25

The State of Karnataka represented by Agriculture Officer, Seeds, Fertilizers and Insecticide Inspector, Terdal presented a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against one Sri. N.M. Patel and two others alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Clause 19(a) & (b) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and under Sections 7(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. By order dated 25.6.2012, the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti took cognizance for the said offences and issued summons to the accused. One Rudragouda Irannagouda Biradar,

¶26

¶27

who was summoned as accused No.3 filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Court below seeking discharge from the proceedings. By order dated 16.3.2017, the learned JMFC, Banahatti allowed the said application discharging Rudragouda Irannagouda Biradar from the proceedings and in the said order the learned JMFC being of the opinion that the present petitioner-R.R. Madar, who was working as Manager, KSCMF Ltd., Bagalkot, decided to arraign him as accused and thereafter, ordered summons to the petitioner herein.

¶28

The petitioner is calling in question the legality of the said order in this petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cognizance taken for the aforesaid offences against the present petitioner is wholly illegal and there is no basis for taking cognizance against him as per the complaint presented before the learned Court below. He submitted that the complainant has not made any request/prayer or produced any material to show that the present petitioner has committed any offences and in fact,

¶30

¶31

in the complaint, the present petitioner has not been named at all and therefore, the learned JMFC could not have issued summons to him. He, therefore, prays that the proceedings are liable to be quashed insofar as the present petitioner is concerned.

¶32

I have heard the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the petition papers.

¶33

In the private complaint presented alleging the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the State of Karnataka, the present petitioner has not at all been named. On the other hand, accused No.3 is mentioned as Manager, KSCMF, Bagalkot in the complaint. The learned JMFC in his order dated 25.6.2012 has passed the following order:

¶34

“ Complainant present.

¶35

This is the complaint presented by the Agricultural Officer, Seeds, Fertilizer & Insecticide Inspector, Terdal, against the accused for the offence under Clause 19(a) & (b) of F.C.O. 1985 and

¶36

¶37

punishable under Sections 7(i) & (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The complaint documents annexed with the complaint constitutes the alleged offences. Hence, cognizance is taken. The complainant being the public servant hence, sworn statement of the complainant is dispensed with as per Section 200 proviso (a) of Cr.P.C. There are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused. Accordingly, it is just and proper to issue summons to the accused as per Section 204 of Cr.P.C.

¶38

Register the criminal case against the accused in Register No.III for the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) & (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶39

Issue summons to the accused returnable by 14.8.2012.”

¶40

It is surprising that even in the said order, the learned JMFC has not noticed that name of accused No.3 has not been mentioned and only designation is mentioned in the complaint. Inspite of the same, he has taken cognizance against a non-existing person. The said error is compounded by further order dated 16.3.2017, which came to be passed on an application filed by one Rudragouda Irannagouda Biradar under Section 239 of

¶41

¶42

Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from the proceedings. Apparently, even though the said Rudragoud Irannagouda Biradar was not at all named in the complaint and no specific order was there from the learned JMFC arraigning him as accused No.3 and ordering issuance of summons to him, summons was issued to the said Rudragouda Irannagouda Biradar as accused No.3 and taking objections to the same, he filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, the learned JMFC by order dated 16.3.2017 was persuaded to accept his contention and passed the order discharging him from the proceedings. However, in the same order, the learned JMFC without application from the complainant or any materials having been produced by or on behalf of the complainant has come to the conclusion that the present petitioner is accused No.3 and therefore, he has ordered issuance of summons to him. The said order reads as under:

¶43

“The application by name Rudragouda Irannagouda Biradar has filed this petition for

¶44

¶45

discharge. It is submitted that the complaint has filed this complaint against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 7(1)(a)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In the said case, the accused No.3 transferred from Bagalkot to Athani and he is serving at Athani. After transfer of accused No.3, he has taken charge of Manager, KSCMF Ltd., Bagalkot and joined to duty on 18.4.2011. Due to mistake he has received summons issued the accused No.3 on his official capacity, but as on the date of commission of offence he was not working in Bagalkot. The summons was mistaken the received by him and he has appeared and obtained bail. The charges leveled against the accused No.3 is no way concerned to him. Therefore, he prays for discharge from the case.

¶46

Learned APP filed objections to the applications.

¶47

Heard both side.

¶48

The complainant agricultural officer, Rait Samparka Kendra, Terdal has filed this complaint against accused No.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 19(a) (b)

¶49

¶50

of Fertilizers Control Order, 1985 read with Section 7(1)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act. The said complaint has been registered against accused No.1 and 2 in their personal capacity as well as marketing agency. Accused No.3 is manager, KSEMF Ltd., Bagalkot. The alleged offence took place on 5.1.2011 and after investigation the complainant has filed report. Thereafter, cognizance also taken and case has been registered against accused No.1 to 3. The applicant has produced documents, it reveals that the applicant has joined the office of KSEMF Ltd., Bagalkot on 18.4.2011. The applicant was working as Senior Assistant at Hospet and he was relieved from his duty on 15.4.2011. In this regard, the applicant has produced relieving letter and order dated 21.3.2011 issued by the Government of Karnataka. The applicant has retired from his service on 30.06.2014.

¶51

The material documents placed by the applicant reveals that he is no way concerned to the alleged offence. As on the date of commission of offence, he was not working Manager, KSCMF Ltd., Bagalkot. Due to

¶52

¶53

mistake and in the official capacity, he has received summons from the Court. As on the date of commission of offence. Further, the document produced by the applicant reveals that as on the date of commission of offence one Sri. R.R. Madar, was working as Managaer of the KSCMF Ltd., Bagalkot. Due to his transfer, the present applicant has received summons. Therefore, the applicant filed by the applicant is to be allowed. The applicant is entitled for discharge. Therefore, Court proceed to pass the following order:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The application filed by the applicant by name Rudragouda Irannagouda Biradar under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

¶56

The applicant is hereby discharged from the case.

¶57

Issue summons to R.R. Madar the then Manager of KSCMF Ltd., Bagalkot.

¶58

Call on 15.4.2017.”

¶59

The procedure followed by the learned JMFC, to

¶60

say the least, for issuing summons to the present petitioner as accused No.3 is quite strange. He has not

¶61

¶62

come to any prima facie conclusion that the present petitioner has committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and he has not taken cognizance for such offence against the present petitioner and mechanically he proceeded to issue summons to him while discharging the applicant-Rudragouda Irannagouda Biradar. The order issuing summons to the present petitioner passed by the learned JMFC is against all known canons of law and procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. There is absolutely no application of mind to the facts of the case by the learned JMFC and order also does not disclose as to on what basis the learned JMFC has come to the conclusion to issue summons to the present petitioner. In that view of the matter, the order dated 16.3.2017 insofar as issuance of summons to the present petitioner is concerned, is liable to be set-aside. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

a) The above petition is allowed.

¶65

¶66

b) The order dated 16.3.2017 passed in CC No.496/2012 on the file of the learned JMFC, Banahatti, insofar as the same pertains to issue of summons to the present petitioner is concerned, is quashed.

¶67

c) Liberty is reserved to the complainant/respondent No.1 to take appropriate steps, if so advised, to name accused No.3 in the complaint and produce necessary supporting material before the learned JMFC, Banahatti for arraigning accused No.3 in the case.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

JTR

Shri. Raosaheb S/O Ramu Madar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Raosaheb S/O Ramu Madar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Chinnavva W/O Basappa Kappalguddi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Chinnavva W/O Basappa Kappalguddi Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajendra Bandaji Patil Vs Hanuman Credit Souharda Sahakari Ltd.

Sri.Basavant S/O. Mallappa Kenchavvagol Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Sukhvindersingh S/O Pruthvisingh Chug Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramanna S/O. Basappa Hallad Vs Sri. Suratsait S/O. Umedmalji Oswal