IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4038 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI.B.SYED KHALEEL SAB S/O.SYED MEHABOOB SAB, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. DOSTANA TRADERS, SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHAR-577601.
2. M/S DOSTANA TRADERS SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHAR-577601, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI: B.SYED KHALEEL SAB 3. SRI B SYED KHALEEL SAB S/O.SYED MEHABOOB SAB, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. B SYED UMAR S/O.B.SYED KHALEEL SAB, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 5. SMT SHABEEN BANU W/O.B.SYED KHALEEL SAB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 6. SUMAYYA BANAM D/O B.SYED KHALEEL SAB, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 7. M/S B.S.K.RICE INDUSTRIES REGISTER AND PARTNERSHIP FIRM, R.S.NO.40/2B, MAHAJENAHALLI, HARIHAR.
SL.NO.3 TO 6 ARE THE PARTNERS OF M/S B.S.K. RICE INDUSTRIES SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA-577601 REPRESENTED BY SRI: B. SYED KHALEEL SAB ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.BASAVARAJ YALLAPPA GOUD NAIKAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.HARIHAR-577601.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: MALLIKARJUN C BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT U/S 200 CRPC IN P.C.R.NO.3/2015 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 65, 65A, 81 R/W RULE 73, 77, 78, 89 OF APMC ACT, 1960 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR, IN C.C.NO.1183/2015 AND ALLOW THIS CRL.P.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent is absent.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the summons issued to them by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar in C.C.No.1183/2015.
3. Principal contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations made in the complaint do not prima-facie make out ingredients of any of the offences under sections 65, 65A and 81 r/w Rules 73, 77, 78 and 89 of the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing(Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. Learned magistrate has issued summons to the petitioners without taking cognizance of any of the alleged offences and hence, the prosecution initiated against the petitioners is bad in law and cannot be sustained.
4. On going through the order-sheet maintained by the learned magistrate, it is seen that the private complaint filed by the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Harihar, was put up before the court on 18.11.2013 and on that day, the learned magistrate directed the office to check and put up the file. Thereafter, the file was put up before the learned magistrate on different dates and on 21.01.2015, learned magistrate passed the following order:-
21.01.2015 “SK submits Respondent copy Heard and submitted Cognizance taken against accused for Offence alleged against accused.
Registered the case in Register No.11 Call 28/5 Sd/- 21/1”
Subsequent order dated 04.11.2015 reads as under:-
4.11.2015 Complainant- S.K.
“Complainant is absent. Perused the records. On 21.1.2015 itself cognizance of the offence is taken by the Court and order to register of the case. The complainant is the public servant. Hence S/St. is dispensed with. Office to register criminal case against the accused persons for the alleged offences and issue S/S to the accused.
Call 08/2/16 Sd/- 4/11”
5. The above order-sheet indicate that the learned magistrate has not taken cognizance of any of the offences. On the other hand, learned magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused persons. The order does not mention as to the offences in respect of which, cognizance is taken by the learned magistrate. Even the order of issuance of summons does not disclose application of mind by the learned magistrate to the facts of the case and the offences in respect of which summons have been issued to the petitioners. In view of these lapses, the impugned order sheets dated 21.01.2015 and 04.11.2015 passed by the learned magistrate cannot be sustained.
As a result, the petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 21.01.2015 and 04.11.2015 passed by learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar are quashed. Matter is remitted back to the learned magistrate to consider the complaint afresh from the stage of receiving the complaint in the light of the observations made in the course of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-