Yogesh v. The State of Karnataka

NC:(2026:KHC-K:773( CRL.P(No.(201684(of(2023( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA,(( KALABURAGI(BENCH( ( THDATED(THIS(THE(30 (DAY(OF(JANUARY(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(MOHAMMAD(NAWAZ( CRIMINAL(PETITION(NO.201684(OF(2023(( ( ( BETWEEN:(( (

1., YOGESH,S/O.,RAJENDRA,JAMADAR,, AS,PER,CHARGE,SHEET,, AGE:,23,YEARS,,OCCUPATION:,BUSINESS,,, R/O.,RUDRAWADI,,TALUK:,ALAND,,, DISTRICT:,KALABURAGI-585302.,

,

2., MOUNESH,S/O.,SIDRAMAPPA,MALIPATIL,,, AGE:,38,YEARS,,OCCUPATION:,DRIVER,,, R/O.,MAMDAPUR,,TALUK:,ALAND,,, DISTRICT:,KALABURAGI.,

…PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.AMEERAHAMAJA,ABDULKHADAR,GUNNAPURA,,ADVOCATE), , , , VIJAYALAKSHMI AND:( M0KANKUPPI ( THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,Digitallytisignedti by VIJAYALAKSHMI0M KANKUPPI THROUGH,ALAND,POLICE,STATION,,, Date:02026.02.06 10:29:310+0530 REPRESENTED,BY,THE,ADDITIONAL,STATE,PUBLIC,PROSECUTOR,,, HIGH,COURT,OF,KARNATAKA,,KALABURAGI-585102., …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.GOPAL,KISHAN,YADAV,,HCGP), , THIS,CRIMINAL,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,482,OF, CR.P.C./,UNDER,SECTION,528,OF,BNSS,,PRAYING,TO,ALLOW,THE, PRESENT, CRIMINAL, PETITION, AND, ALSO, QUASH, THE, FIR, NO.81/2022,WHICH,WAS,REGISTERED,AT,ALAND,POLICE,STATION,, KALABURAGI, DISTRICT, AGAINST, PETITIONER, NO.1, YOGESH, S/O., RAJENDRA, JAMADAR, AND, PETITIONER, NO.2, MOUNESH, S/O., SIDRAMAPPA, MALIPATIL,, FOR, THE, OFFENCE, PUNISHABLE, UNDER, SECTIONS,3,,6,AND,7,OF,THE,ESSENTIAL,COMMODITIES,ACT,1955, IN, THE, INTEREST, OF, JUSTICE, AND, EQUITY., THE, SAID, CASE,

TRIALED AT PRL.C.K (JD) AND JMFC ALAND OF KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE HEARING AT DHARWAD BENCH ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

¶1Petitioners are seeking to quash FIR No.81/2022 registered by Aland Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 6 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EC Act', for short).

¶2Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶3FIR is registered against the petitioners and the owner of EICHER vehicle bearing registration No.MH.08.H-0861 alleging that on 25.06.2022 at about 04.30 a.m., the accused were found transporting the rice meant for public distribution, purchased from the villagers, with an intention to sell it for higher price. A total quantity of 6260kg of rice valued at ₹1,56,520/- as well as the vehicle in question were seized under a mahazar.

¶4On completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the petitioners namely accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 6 and 7 of EC Act for violating Clause of The Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992.

¶5The instant petition to quash the FIR is filed on the ground that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and the allegations that they were illegally transporting ration rice meant for Public distribution etc. are false. The learned counsel contended that petitioner No.1 is the owner of M/s Dinesh Trading Company, Rudrawadi, Taluk Aland, Kalaburagi district and he purchased the rice from M/s Wasim Trading Company, Zafarabad, Kalaburagi on

26.04.2022 at ₹20/- per kg. He further contended that the said M/s Wasim Trading Company has purchased the rice from Shree Ganesh Trading Company. He relies on the bill dated 16.06.2022 issued by Shree Ganesh Trading Company at Annexure H and also the tax invoice issued by M/s Wasim Trading Company to M/s Dinesh Trading Company. The

learned counsel also contended that under similar circumstances, this Court taking into consideration the relevant documents, quashed the proceedings in Criminal Petition No.200646/2022 vide Order dated 11.07.2022.

¶6The learned High Court Government Pleader contended that investigation is completed and charge sheet is already filed in this case. Further, the petitioners have filed discharge application before the trial Court and the said application was rejected on 18.10.2023 and so far, the petitioners have not challenged the said order. He contended that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and the documents now furnished cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. He has accordingly sought to dismiss the petition.

¶7As rightly contented by the learned HCGP, the copy of the documents now produced and relied on by the petitioners cannot be taken into consideration in this petition seeking quashing of the proceedings. The veracity or the authenticity of those documents cannot be gone into at this stage. Further, it is not in dispute that the trial Court has

rejected the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge vide order dated 18.10.2023. The petitioners, as on today, have not challenged the said order.

¶8There is no merit in this petition. Petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.1/2025 is disposed of.

All the contentions are kept open to be raised at the appropriate stage.

SD/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

KMV CT:PA LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 3