Dismissed¶62

Iranna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2025CRL.P/200463/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing; S.482 Cr.P.C.; S.528 BNSS 2023; Essential Commodities Act Ss.3, 6 & 7; PDS rice seizure 2365 kgs. worth Rs.59,125/-; goods vehicle KA-23/4790; petitioner as driver; no-nexus plea; disputed facts not decidable in 482 petition without mini trial; nexus to be tested at trial before Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Aland; charge-sheet; petition dismissed, contentions kept open; High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench; decided 11-06-2025; Justice V. Srishananda.

What did the court decide?

Whether the petitioner was the beneficiary of the rice bags illegally transported in the goods vehicle is a disputed fact that cannot be decided by this Court at this point of time by holding a mini trial. ¶53

Iranna Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3043 CRL.P No. 200463 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶5

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶6

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200463/2025

¶10

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

IRANNA S/O MALLIKARJUN BELURE, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL SERVICE, R/O. SHIVAJI NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585102.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI SYED MASTAN, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ALAND POLICE STATION, TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI, REPRSENTED BY ADDL. HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH- 585107.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M. MALIPATIL, HCGP)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3043 CRL.P No. 200463 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.8288/2022 VIDE CRIME NO.8/2022, WHICH CAME TO BE REGISTERED IN F.I.R. NO.19/2022 OF ALAND POLICE STATION, TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI, ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALAND, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3, 6 & 7 OF E.C. ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA)

¶27

Heard learned counsel Sri Syed Mastan for the

¶28

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Veeranagouda M. Malipatil for the respondent-State.

¶29

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.8288/2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Aland, vide Crime No.08/2022 registered in F.I.R. No.19/2022 by Aland

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3043 CRL.P No. 200463 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Police Station, Tq. Aland, Dist. Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 6 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

¶33

Facts in nutshell for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶34

3.1 A complaint came to be lodged by Sri Mahadevappa Bobade, Government Official, who is a Food Inspector with Aland Police Station on 18.01.2022 it was registered in Crime No.8/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 6 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶35

3.2 The report given by Sri Mahadevappa with the Aland Police revealed that he being the Food Inspector, Aland, was on the patrolling duty and had the credible information that somebody is transporting the rice bags in a vehicle which is meant for PDS distribution.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3043 CRL.P No. 200463 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Accordingly he was keeping a watch for the suspected vehicle on 17.01.2022 at about 11:30 a.m. He spotted a goods vehicle bearing No.KA-23/4790. On suspicion the said vehicle was intercepted. On inspecting the said vehicle it is noticed that the rice bags were being transported in the said goods vehicle without permit and necessary documents.

¶40

On further verification of the sample rise from the rice bags, it is revealed that those bags contained the rice which was meant for public distribution. A panchnama was also drafted in this regard after seizing the rice bags and the vehicle. As per the panchnama, rice bags worth Rs.59,125/- having the quantity of 2365 kgs., were seized and therefore, filed a report to the Police to take appropriate action.

¶41

The Police after receipt of the said report, registered a case, which is now pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate for trial.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3043 CRL.P No. 200463 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

In the meantime, petitioner has approached

¶46

this Court with an aforesaid prayer contending that the present petitioner being the driver of the goods vehicle, had no nexus whatsoever with the alleged incident and therefore, sought for quashing of the pending proceedings.

¶47

He would also contend that at the time of incident, present petitioner was not at all the driver and therefore, he could not have been the driver of the goods vehicle which has been seized by the Food Inspector.

¶48

Per contra, High Court Government Pleader

¶49

supports the filing of the charge-sheet against the present petitioner is arraigned as an accused in the incident as driver of the goods vehicle and the owner of the goods vehicle revealed the name of the present petitioner, who is the beneficiary of the rice bags.

¶50

Based on the said statement made by the present petitioner, the other accused persons, have been arranged as accused to the incident.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3043 CRL.P No. 200463 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Weather at all the present petitioner was the beneficiary of the rice bags, which were being illegally transported in the goods vehicle or not cannot be decided by this Court at this point of time by holding a mini trial.

¶54

It is always open for the present petitioner to establish that he had no nexus whatsoever with regard to seized rice bags.

¶55

Unless the present petitioner had some nexus with the incident why would the owner and driver of the goods vehicle take out the name of the petitioner is a question that needs to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Magistrate after full fledged trial.

¶56

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the disputed facts cannot be decided in the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to accord the prayer in favour of the petitioner as it is out of the purview out of the powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3043 CRL.P No. 200463 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60