5>
%.
!\.J
' V' "KOPPA DISTRICT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14*" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARASWAMY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.SS92 OF 2010 T k
BETWEEN:
SR1 HEMOJI RAO
S/O SR1 THULAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
PROP: M/S.HOSA ANGADITRADERS, _
MAIN ROAD, DODDABATHI VILLAGE _ '-
DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT
SR1 D K HANUMANTHA RAO .
S/O LATE D H KULKARNI ' "
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ANJANEYA AGRO DISTRIBUTORS I I
NO.95/IA, NEAR VRL'OFFICE.=" .
K R ROAD, DAVANGF_RE';. '
SR1SUDH_AKARRAO»"=-..
S/O SR1 SL'IRYANARAY'#~.NPA .
AGED ABOUT._53.YEA'RS ,
PROP: SR1 VIJAYALAKS-HMI_AGR~O
AGENCI'EYS, VADARA COLONY
1SLAMPUR,'~GANGAv'ATH1 A
.. ..... .. _..PETITIONERS
BYSRIIA: _S'HIvAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
STATE OEKARNATAKA
HBY SUB 'INSPECTOR OF POLICE
. * ._SRI,I~{IANIUNATH
~._DAvANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION
E3AVV'.~'\N"GERE CIRCLE AND
* DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
Iv
ASST. DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE I
SR1 V.E. NARASIMHA MURTHY 'é
DAVANGERE. ~.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
RMC ROAD, DAVANAGERE. ...RESPOi\EDENTS.._'_*
(av SRI: E RAJASUBRAHMANYA BHAT, HIGH COURT GOv'ERNM_ENT I H
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTiQN”‘§i8’2g T
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH_ STIR R.Ec3I_STERED–_
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.1G6/2010 OF DAVANCEIIE ‘RURA’:,_ ~
POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE “FILE OF IMEC’–I ._jCO_URT.»,
DAVANGERE, IN C.C.NO.2291/2010 EOR.._THgE ALLEGED WOFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 ‘OE INDIAN
PENAL CODE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION CON’IN.G*.ONgFOR”ORDERS BEFORE THE
COURT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE EOVLLOWINOQ,
This Crimina’|'”FTetitAi’onl._iS f:iIje:C§3A”‘*u._n’tT_eiI'<.;Section 482 of Code
of Criminal registered against
the petitioners in Davangere Rural Poiice
Station, pencfing’on”tl7Ie’V._iiiA|’e_»’o’R”SOJMFC–I Court, Davangere, in
for°t’I°.ve«–«a’I|eged offences punishabie under
SeCtion ‘readifwithusection 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. “I”*–hav’:e heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners
4’S_g’VaS4’wI=’2£i as theliearnecf High Court Government Pleader.
3. The primary facts of the case is as under:
The Davangere Rural Police Station have registered a case;in–.T
Crime No.106/2010 for the offence punishable under
420 read with 34 of Indian Penai Code against the’:”’a:ccuf_sed %
|\io.1–Hemoji Rao, accused No.2–Hanurn:antfh’a’
No.3-owner of Vijayalakshmi Agro Agencies, ITs.|5an:1a§ad’;.«”‘
Gangavathi. It is alieged in the cofvrnioiaint that
purchased 70 packets (30
seeds from Hosangadi Traders._ but the
crops were not fsub–standard
Ciuaiity. Therefore’, Viwritten compiaint to
the Assistant”i1iVivrectE;_r Then the
Assistant Director’ raided the Doddabathi
Hosangadij.–Trader”s..:§§nd.T’se”i-zed.’ the reievant biils and the
AThereafter’thefflseeds were sent to the iaboratory for
cherra–i.ca.i_s-e$<a.n'1–i._natio.n';~~ Ag ricultu rai {ands were aiso inspected.
the ifnv_est_i.gationf, it was found that the seeds sold were
to thfevextent of 81-90%. Therefore, the concerned
7».3"=Po'iice~..Vr'e.r}i'stered a case against the accused for the offence
"iV§3'ijmis,hE;bie under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian
case diary and the }oint Director of Agriculture has written
the letter to Badavane Police Station, Davangere, whereas
the crime is registered at Davangere Rural Police Station.
Therefore, the said document cannot be looked into, at.._”thi_s.._l”c-V’
stage.
6. Though it is the contention of the “learned coiurise!
the petitioner that the Joint Director
Davangere, has written a letter’ to””~.the ‘E5a_dav_3r*:e”‘~P’o’iice
Station, Davangere, stating_thatr-“1S”g_:’–far»mers«intend to
withdraw the complaint, it is diff,icul’t.,tofco:nsiider the defence
of the accused, at this ‘-stage.’ wnaile deciding a
petition under, Criminal Procedure, the
defence of the ac_cused’ examined or referred to.
As.vstated..’ealVrIier, thVe”‘–Pol_i_ce.have investigated the case and
cha’r_ge;’s–h,eet:_v’h,asA:V'”‘be’en laid against the accused for the
offencep’o~rl’isVhatS_ige Section 420 read with Section 34 of
ifllndian Penal ‘tod’e. Filing of charge sheet constitutes prima
«:.*VfaciefV.ca’se.g against the petitioner. This Court exercises
A’-“_c~i,r3he-rerit power to quash crime in rarest of rare cases.
‘
Further the inherent power has to exercised with great care
and caution. This is not the rarest of the rare case whearea
this Court can exercise inherent power to quash the«~~cr_i’ift’i_e’.j’
especiaiiy when the charge sheet has been fiEedI’a–nd:.A_it’he i 3
dealer has sold the substandard quaiity to ‘the’1
In that View of the matter, this Criminal Petit;=.on is .’dIe\:}oid oft.”
merits and the same is liabie to be dtitsrnissed. ~. ‘
7. In the result, I passvt:h~e_foi!o.t}iiintji._