IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA W.P. No. 48042/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN M/S. S. R. TRADERS, DEALERS IN MAIZE AND JOWAR NO.3/50, ROYA KOTTA ROAD, HOSUR-635 109, TAMIL NADU STATE, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI SHIVASHANKAR AGARWAL, S/O LATE RAMASEVAK AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. LAXMINARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. B. PRABHUDEVA, ADV.) AND 1. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, ENFORCEMENT CELL, NO.16, 11TH RAJABHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER(KARNATAKA), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE AT 10 EAST END MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 041 4. KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDER TAKING NO.16/1, MILERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC.482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.4.2011 FILED BY R-2 VIDE ANENXURE-B AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2238/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JN. DN.) AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA, AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.2378/2013 on the file of the III-Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga.
3. The record discloses that, earlier the accused/petitioner had filed a Criminal Petition Nos.4550/2011 and 5154/2014. The said petitions were disposed of on 19.1.2012 and 31.03.2015 respectively by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to approach the court for his discharge by making necessary application. Again, without there being any changed circumstances, the present petition is filed.
4. Though the learned counsel has raised many grounds before this court, I am reluctant to consider those grounds, because, those grounds were already urged before this court in the previous petitions and the said petitions were disposed of with the said liberty. Therefore, the petitioner is required to exhaust the liberty granted by this court. Later, if the petitioner is aggrieved or on any changed circumstances, he can approach this Court once again.
With the above observation, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*