Quashed

Kalamesh Mallikarjuna Pujar Alias Hugar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022CRL.P/101410/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for offences under Essential Commodities Act, 1995. High Court observed investigation was conducted before FIR registration without exigency, citing Lalita Kumari, and held continuation of proceedings would be abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings registered as C.C. No.2580/2021 against Petitioners Accused No.1 to 4 are quashed.

Kalamesh Mallikarjuna Pujar Alias Hugar Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 101410 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101410 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KALAMESH MALLIKARJUNA PUJAR ALIAS HUGAR, AGE. 26 YEARS OCC. DRIVER R/O. G. BASAVANAKOPPA VILLAGE KALAGATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD- 580001

¶10

RAMESH DEVAPPA KULKARNI AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. CLEANER TRUCK R/O. LINGAYATH ONI MUNDARGI VILLAGE, TQ. GADAG DIST. DHARWAD- 580001

¶11

SHIDDANAGOUDA C PATIL AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. GARDEN PET, HUBBALLI TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD- 580001

¶12

ABDUL MUNSI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. KOPPAL, TQ. KOPPAL- 583231

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. V M SHEELVANT, SRI. S.H.MITTALKHOD, SRI. VINAY S.KOUJALAGI & SRI. M.L.VANTI, ADVOCATES)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI KOPPAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH-580001

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 101410 of 2022

¶19

CHANNABASAPPA

¶20

AGE. 46 YEARS OCC. FOOD INSPECTOR, GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL - NON- GAZETTED R/O. KOPPAL, KARNATAKA- 583231

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4, IN CC NO.2580/2021 (KOPPAL RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.16/2021) PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN) AND JMFC COURT, KOPPAL FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3 AND SECTION 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1995.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶27

On receiving a credible information that food grains, which were meant for distribution under public distribution system, were being transported unauthorisedly, the Police went to the spot and seized the food-grains by drawing up a panchanama. Thereafter a FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Act’). After investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet.

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 101410 of 2022

¶30

The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons to the petitioners-accused. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have obtained the traders licence for purchasing and selling the food grains and, in the absence of any material to show that the food grains, which were seized, were meant for distribution under the public distribution system, the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Section 3 & 7 of the Act, and laying of the charge sheet is impermissible. He further submits that the offences punishable under Section 3 & 7 of the Act, being cognizable offences, the police were required to register the FIR before conducting investigation, but in the instant case, the police without registering the FIR has conducted the investigation and a charge sheet has been laid which is impermissible since it violates Articles 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he places reliance on a co-ordinate Bench decision of this court in

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 101410 of 2022

¶34

Crl.P. No.101739/2021 and connected petitions disposed of on 16.02.2022.

¶35

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the petitioners were found to be unauthorisedly transporting food grains meant for distribution under public distribution system, and as such they have committed the offences punishable under Section 3 & 7 of the Act, and laying of the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶37

learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

To constitute offences punishable under Sections 3 & 7 of the Act, a person must have transported the foodgrains meant for distribution under public distribution system. No material is placed along with the charge sheet to show that the food-grains, which were being transported, were meant for distribution under the public distribution

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 101410 of 2022

¶41

system. It is undisputed that the petitioners are the registered traders and are granted with licence to purchase and sell the food grains. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners have produced trade licence and also invoices for having purchased good-grains from the APMC and other private traders. The offences are cognizable offences and the police were required to register the FIR at the first instance. There is no material produced showing any exigency to have to conducted investigation and thereafter register FIR. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P.¹ has held that conducting an investigation into an offence after registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is the “procedure established by law” and, thus, is in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution is protected if the FIR is registered first and then the investigation is conducted in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶42

1 (2014)2 SCC 1

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 101410 of 2022

¶45

In view of the same, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused will be an abuse of process of law since the probability of conviction of the petitioners-accused is remote and bleak. Hence, pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The criminal petition is allowed. The impugned criminal proceedings registered against the petitioners-accused No.1 to 4 in C.C. No.2580/2021 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court, Koppal, is hereby quashed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

KMS

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86

Kalamesh Mallikarjuna Pujar Alias Hugar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalamesh Mallikarjuna Pujar Alias Hugar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavaraj S/O Shankrappa Akkivalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Progressive Education Trust, Vs the State of Karnataka

Yalaguradappa Bhimappa Goudar Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Mahaveer S/O. Bharamu Chougala Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Suresh S/O Kalappa Kammar Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Adamsab S/O Ghudusab Tekadi Vs State of Karnataka