Sri Sandeepa Reddy D Vs State of Karnataka by

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMANAGARA POLICE STATION, RAMNAGAR TOWN CIRCLE SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA DIST, RAMANAGAR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING ANNEX, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶19

SRI MURALI T, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, RAMANAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION, RAMANAGAR-562 159.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVIAH, HCGP)

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:717 CRL.P No. 1896 of 2024

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.126/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3,6(A),7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT PERTAINS TO CR.NO.42/2022 FILED BEFORE THE RAMANAGAR POLICE ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶29

“a) Call for records in C.C.No.126/2023, pending the file of the 1^st Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagar for the offences punishable under Section 3, 6(A) and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶30

b) Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.126/2023, pending on the file of the 1^st Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagar, for the offences punishable under section 3, 6(A) and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pertains to Crime No.42/2022, filed before the Ramanagara Police.

¶31

c) Further be pleased to grant any other relief/reliefs that this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case with costs of these proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶32

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:717 CRL.P No. 1896 of 2024

¶35

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2, PSI, Ramangara Town Police Station filed a complaint against the petitioner inter alia contending that the petitioners were carrying 421 bags of rice without necessary documents, thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 3, 6-A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the said Act of 1955”). In pursuance of the said complaint, charge sheet was filed and proceedings in C.C.No.126/2023 are pending before the Trial Court, in which the petitioners are arraigned as accused persons, who are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶36

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the subject goods were seized by the respondent-police authorities, who were not competent nor entitled to do so under the provisions of the said Act of 1955, especially when the seizure ought to have been done only by the competent authorities under the said Act of 1965. In addition thereto, there is no material or certificate from the Food Corporation of India to indicate that the subject rice bags, which were seized for distribution under the Public Distribution Scheme so as to attract the alleged offences against the petitioner.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:717 CRL.P No. 1896 of 2024

¶39

It is also relevant to state that the cash/credit bill dated 21.04.2022 issued by the seller, M/s. Anjaneya Swamy Traders will indicate that the petitioners had purchased the subject 421 rice bags for valuable consideration and the said document was produced before the respondent – Police during the course of investigation, but the same had not been considered by them at the time of filing the charge sheet. So also, except the aforesaid allegations made against the petitioners, which have not been substantiated by the respondents, who also were not competent or entitled to seize the subject goods, there is no other material to indicate commission of the offences by the petitioners. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that continuation of proceedings in so far as the petitioners are concerned would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference in the present petition.

¶40

In the result, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.126/2023 pending on the file of the 1^st Aditional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagar, in

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:717 CRL.P No. 1896 of 2024

¶45

so far as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶46

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶47

Tsn/BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri Sandeepa Reddy D v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sandeepa Reddy D v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sachin Patil Vs the State by Basavanagudi Police Station

Aravinda S Vs State of Karnataka

Asif Tambuli Vs K S Nagaraj

Sri.Sharan Kumar N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrahasa S L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath M S Vs the State of Karnataka