Dismissed¶¶41

State of Karnataka v. Danone Narang Beverages

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025WA/4720/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench writ appeal dismissed 15.10.2025; maintainability of writ appeal against quashing of criminal complaint C.C. No.829/2012 (Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I); writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution with Section 482 CrPC 1973; appeal under Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; relied on Nijaguni Sitaram Badiger vs. Taluka Executive Magistrate (Writ Appeal No.100643/2017 (GM-Police), 23.07.2018) which relied on Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana (AIR 2017 SC 1535); appellant State of Karnataka - Inspector, Legal Metrology, Flying Squad-2; respondents Danone Narang Beverages Private Limited and Shivaraj Menon / Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited; WA No. 4720 of 2016 (GM-RES); NC: 2025:KHC:40970-DB.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed. ¶¶41

State of Karnataka Vs Danone Narang Beverages — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40970-DB WA No. 4720 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶9

WRIT APPEAL No. 4720 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR, LEGAL METROLOGY, FLYING SQUAD-2, No.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SMT. N. ANITHA, AGA)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed 1. DANONE NARANG BEVERAGES by VALLI PRIVATE LIMITED, MARIMUTHU M/S DANONE NARANG BEVERAGES Location: HIGH COURT OF PRIVATE LIMITED, KARNATAKA No.B-869, SARKAR HERITAGE, 2^ND FLOOR, J.P.K.S. COMPLEX KANE ROAD, BANDSTAND BANDRA(WEST), MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.J.VENKATESH.

¶16

MR.SHIVARAJ MENON MAJOR, M/S DRIVE INDIA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS LIMITED

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:40970-DB WA No. 4720 of 2016

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

No.159/1 AND 160/1 KANNAMANGALA, WHITE FIELD-HOSKOTE ROAD BENGALURU-02.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.06.2019 SERVICE ON R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION No.13060/2013 DATED 30/8/2016.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶28

Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant-State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

¶29

This appeal has been filed seeking for setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the learned

¶30

Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13060/2013 (GM-RES).

¶31

It appears that, a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227

¶32

of the Constitution along with Section 482 of the Code of

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40970-DB WA No. 4720 of 2016

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed by the respondent No.1 seeking the relief, inter alia, of quashing the complaint being C.C. No.829/2012 filed by the respondent No.1 before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I¹ as well as the entire proceedings before the Court pursuant to the said complaint. By means of the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition was allowed; the impugned order passed by the Magistrate was set aside; the complaint and the proceedings in C.C. No.829/2012 were quashed and consequential orders were also passed.

¶36

The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ appeal on the ground that criminal proceedings were sought to be assailed before the learned Single Judge and even though, the proceeding was titled as writ petition, it was essentially seeking relief in respect of the criminal complaint filed against the respondent No.1 and under the circumstances, no writ appeal would be maintainable before this Court.

¶37

1 Magistrate

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40970-DB WA No. 4720 of 2016

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

4.1 The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nijaguni Sitaram Badiger vs. Taluka Executive Magistrate and others² passed on 23.07.2018 whereby, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana and others³ , and rejected the appeal.

¶41

We find that the facts of the instant case justify its dismissal in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed .

¶42

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶43

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶44

MV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

¶45

2 Writ Appeal No.100643/2017 (GM-Police).

¶46

3 AIR 2017 SC 1535

State of Karnataka v. Danone Narang Beverages

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Danone Narang Beverages

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Ekta Singh Vs Dr Rajeev Giri

Smt. S H Meenakshi Vs Sri G Biskurappa @ Puttaswamaiah

Dr. Kailash M S Vs Dr. Chandrika K v

Mrs. Chaithra Vs Mr. Mahesh

Sri Dilbag Singh Vs Smt. Sumana C v

Sri H D Ramesh Vs the Commissioner