Hajilal Hajianvar Pailawan Vs State of Karnataka

ANAND S/O. REVU RATHOD, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: STATE GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. JAMAKHANDI, BAGALKOT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED IN JAMAKHANDI TOWN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.0041/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, JAMAKHANDI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8044 CRL.P No. 102317 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri M.L.Vanti, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶33

and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents.

¶34

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.41/2025 of Jamkhandi Police Station registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (“EC Act” for short), pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Jamakhandi.

¶35

Respondent No.1 – Police have registered the First Information Report for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of EC Act alleging that accused Nos.1 to 4 were stored 17190 Kgs. of rice in 336 gunny bags worth Rs.5,94,774/- meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System, which was stored in the land of accused No.1 bearing R.S.No.633/2B/2 and hence FIR was registered

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8044 CRL.P No. 102317 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

against the petitioners. Taking exception to the same, the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 4 submits that, the registration of FIR after conducting investigation is impermissible as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P¹ .

¶40

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents submits that, the FIR material clearly discloses that the food grains meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System was being stored unauthorizedly by the petitioners in their land and hence, the First Information Report filed is in accordance with the provisions of the EC Act.

¶41

I have perused the entire material available on

¶42

record.

¶43

1 (2014) 2 SCC 1

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8044 CRL.P No. 102317 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The First Information Report was lodged alleging

¶47

that on receipt of credible information that the petitioners were unauthorizedly stored 17,190 Kgs. of rice in 336 gunny bags worth Rs.5,95,774/-, which was meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System. Hence, the police conducted the raid and seized the food grains meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System and thereafter, registered the first information for the aforesaid offences. Respondent No.1 – State before conducting search, ought to have registered the First Information Report. The registration of the FIR before conducting the investigation is the normal procedure established by law and in conformity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalitha Kumari (supra) . Hence, the conducting of the raid without registering the FIR at the first instance is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the police before registering the First Information Report have conducted the raid and the same is one without authority of law. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8044 CRL.P No. 102317 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The Criminal petition is hereby allowed.

¶52

(ii) The impugned FIR registered in Crime No.41/2024 by the Jamakhandi Town Police against the petitioner – accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 7 of the EC Act pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Court, Jamakhandi is hereby quashed.

¶53

In view of the disposal of criminal petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of.

¶54

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶55

EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Hajilal Hajianvar Pailawan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hajilal Hajianvar Pailawan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundar Annasaheb Kamble Vs Sandeep S/O Tanai Ghodake

Sri Vasudev S/O Malla Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Madev S/O Malla Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Amruta D/O Ramesh Karadigudda W/O Girish v P Vs Girish v P

Sri. Nagaraj Alias B Nagappa S/O Shivappa Vs State of Karnataka

Parasaqppa S/O. Basapppa Somannavar Vs State of Karnataka