Shri.Vimalchand vs Dr.T. Someshkar, on 26 July, 2017

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri.Vimalchand vs Dr.T. Someshkar, on 26 July, 2017

Bench: R.B Budihal

                         :1:



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH.

           DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017.

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

       WRIT PETITION NO.105753 OF 2016.(GM-RES)


BETWEEN:

SHRI VIMALCHAND S/O. BHAVARLAL JANGADA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL.

                                             ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE)


AND:

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT CELL)
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING DEPARTMENT,
NO.16, 2ND RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001.
                                            ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF
THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO COURT ISSUE
APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS TO THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
KOPPAL TO CLOSE THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.380/2010 AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 IN
TERMS OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WIRT PETITION NOS. 15434-454/2012 AND 15455-57/2012
AND CONEECTED MATTERS DATED: 20.09.2013.
                          :2:



      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR 'B' GROUP THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying the Court to issue appropriate directions to the Civil Judge and JMFC at Koppal to close the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.380/2010 against the petitioner-accused No.5 in terms of the order passed by this Court in writ petition Nos.15434-454/2012 & 15455-57/2012 and connected matters dated 29.09.2013 in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard the counsels on both sides.

3. I have perused the averments made in the writ petition, wherein it is that stated respondent herein filed the private complaint alleging that as an Additional Director, when he visited the business firm on 04.02.2010, firm has failed to produce the stock book, purchase bills, :3: sales bills, form No.38 and other relevant records, confirming the payment of market fee to the Market Committee Koppal. Under those circumstances criminal proceedings came to be initiated alleging that the firm has carried out the transactions in violation of Section 65(2A)(ia) of the Karnataka Agriculture Produce Marketing Regulation Development Act 1966 and Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation and Development Rules 1968. The further averments that learned Magistrate without verifying the records and without verifying the relevant provisions of the Act proceeded to take cognizance against the firm and its partners and a criminal case in C.C.No.380/2010 came to be registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by this Court dated 20th day of September 2013 passed in the batch of the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15434-454/2012 and connected matter.

5. I have perused the copy of the said order. This Court allowed the petitions and quashed the criminal :4: proceedings pending before the Court, also holding that they would be bad in law and would be unauthorized. Consequently the said proceedings pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC Koppal in C.C.No.379/2010 and C.C.No.380/2010 stand quashed.

6. The petitioner herein is also one of the partner of the said firm and it is mentioned in the petition that at the time of filing the earlier petition as he was not available, he has not joined in the earlier petition and now he has filed the petition alleging that proceedings are not closed as against him and the concerned Court is insisting him to appear before the Court.

7. In view of the order passed by this Court, entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.380/2010 are quashed and the order is not confined to only the writ petitioners, who filed the writ petitions before this Court. In view of that the learned Trial Judge ought to have closed the proceedings, even as against the petitioner herein. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the Trial :5: Court is hereby directed to close the proceedings against the petitioner herein in view of the judgment passed by this Court dated 20.09.2013.

However the respondent-marketing committee to proceed against the petitioner, if they want to proceed, by complying with the requirements of the concerned law.

Intimate the concerned Court accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE RHR/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court