IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2619 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
Abhishek Ashat Complan Assistant Product Manager, M/s. Heinz India Pvt Ltd., 7th Floor, D-Shiva Nagar, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. …Petitioner (By Sri. Bharath Kumar .V, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Through Station House Officer, Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station, Represented by:
The State Public Prosecutor, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. A. Channayya S/o Arayya, Aged about 39 years, R/o No.107, 4th Cross, Anand Pura, J.B. Nagar, Bengaluru. ...Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1; Sri. M.S. Purushothama, Advocate for R2-absent) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR dated 07.04.2015 and complaint dated 08.04.2015 registered with respondent No.1 Police as FIR bearing No.96/2015 for alleged offences under Section 336 of IPC (Annexure-A and A1).
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R On the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, respondent No.1-Jeevan Bheemanagar Police registered a FIR in Crime No.96/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 336 of IPC against Complan Product Manager(accused No.1), Bengaluru City and owner of Sri. Sairam Medicals, Bengaluru City (accused No.2).
2. According to the complainant, on 27.03.2015 at 11.30 a.m., the complainant purchased a packet of ‘complan’ (pista banu) from the shop of accused No.2 – Sri. Sairam Medicals and when the said complan was consumed by the son of complainant, he suffered vomiting and stomach pain. It is further alleged that the complan packet purchased by the complainant contained worms and was unfit for human consumption and hence, the seller as well as the manufacturer have committed the offence punishable under Section 336 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is sought to be prosecuted in his capacity as a product manager. The manufacturer is not arrayed as accused and hence, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the alleged offence.
4. In the FIR, accused No.1 is described as “Complan Product Manager (A1), Bengaluru City, Bengaluru” making it evident that the manufacturer of the complan product is not made an accused in the FIR and there are no allegations that the petitioner herein was incharge of the affairs of the said company and was responsible for the sale of the product through accused No.2.
5. Under the said circumstances, registration of FIR against the petitioner in his personal capacity cannot be sustained. Hence reserving liberty to the Investigating Officer to proceed against the petitioner, if any incriminating material is collected during the course of investigation. Petition is allowed. The FIR proceedings registered against the petitioner is quashed for the present.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM