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. 48041/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN M/S. S. R. TRADERS, DEALERS IN MAIZE AND JOWAR NO.3/50, ROYA KOTTA ROAD, HOSUR-635109, TAMIL NADU STATE, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI SHIVASHANKAR AGARWAL, S/O 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 ITSSECRETARY.
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 REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR ... 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 AT ANENXURE-B AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2237/2013 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.2237/2013 on the file of the III-Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Shivamogga.
3. The record discloses that, earlier the petitioner has filed a Criminal Petition No.4549/2011 and the said petition was disposed of by this Court on 02.06.2015 reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial 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 petition and the said petition was 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*