In the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA Crl.P.No.8717/2015 BETWEEN 1. RAJENDRA A YELLEGOWDA S/O MR.A.YELLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. RAJESH DEVDHAR S/O SRI VASANTH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 3. SHAMANTHKUMAR S/O G.BALAKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. BALRAMSINGH YADAV S/O MR.CHAMAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 5. S.VARADARAJ S/O MR.S.SUBRAMANIAN AGED AOBUT 46 YEARS, 6. PRAFULLA BHAT S/O MR.JANARDAN D. BHAT AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 7. MANGESH WANGE S/O MR.SRIPADGUNWANT WANGE AGED AOBUT 49 YEARS, 8. PITAMBAR NARKHEDE S/O MR.NARAYAN SHANKAR NARKHEDE 2 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 9. SANJIVANI SADANI W/O MR.SACHINSADANI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 10. VINAY MISHRA S/O MR.VIJAY SHANKAR MISHRA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 11. RAKESH DOGRA S/O MR.GANGA RAM DOGRA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 12. PUNEET POKHRIYAL S/O MR.CHANDRA TAPISH POKHRIYAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 13. DHARMENDRA KUMAR S/O MR.JASWANT SINGH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 14. ARABIND DAS S/O MR.ARUN SUNDER DAS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 15. ADI GODREJ S/O DR.BURJORJI P GODREJ, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 16. NADIR GODREJ S/O DR.BURJORJI P GODREJ AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 17. BALRAMSINGH YADAV S/O SHRI CHAMAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 18. JAMSHYD N.GODREJ S/O MR.NAOROJI P GODREJ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3 19. NISABA GODREJ D/O MR.ADI B GODREJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 20. TANYA DUBASH D/O MR.ADI B GODREJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 21. KAVAS PETIGARA S/O MR.NOSHIRWAN K PETIGARA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 22. SUDHEER ANAOKAR S/O MR.LAXMANRAO ANAOKAR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 23. AMIT CHOUDHURY S/O MR.BIREN N. CHOUDHURY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 24. VIJAY CRISHNA S/O MR.MADHU MOHAN CRISHNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 25. ROHIT SIPAHIMALANI S/O MR.VISHNU SIPAHIMALANI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 TO 12 ARE ASSOCIATED WITH GODREJ AGROVET LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GODREJ ONE, 3 RD FLOOR PIROJSHANAGAR, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, VIKHROLI (EAST) MUMABI-400079 MAHARASHTRA. PETITIONER 13 IS ASSOCIATED WITH GODREJ SEEDS & GENETICS LIMITED (“GSGL”) AND IS WHOLE-TIME DIRECTOR OF GSGL HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PIROJSHANAGAR, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, VIKHROLI, (EAST) MUMABI-400079, MAHARASHTRA. 4 PETITIONER 14 IS ASSOCIATED WITH GODREJ TYSON FOODS LIMITED (“GTFL”) AND IS A WHOLE-TIME DIRECTOR & CEO OF GTFL HAVING IS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GODREJ ONE, 3 RD FLOOR, PIROJSHANAGAR, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, VIKHROLI (EAST) MUMBAI-400079, MAHARASHTRA. PETITIONER 15 TO 25 ARE DIRECTORS OF GODREJ AGROVET LIMITED. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVCHARAN R, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION HUBLI-580021. 2. RAVI TUKARAMSA PATTAN S/O TUKARAMAPATTAN MAJOR IN AGE C/O SRI RENUKA FEEDS AND FARMS VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021 KARNATAKA. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN FURTHERANCE TO THE ORDER DATED 1.12.2015 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.-II, HUBLI IN AS MUCH AS ORDERING REGISTRATION AND REFERENCE OF A PRIVATE COMPLAINT REGISTERED AS P.C.NO.606/2015 TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI FOR INVESTIGATION. 5 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Accused Nos.1 to 25 in P.C.No.606/2015 on the file of the JMFC-II, Hubli have come up in this petition seeking quashing of the same on the ground that the complainant has filed a false complaint with Vidyanagar Police of Hubli, which is registered in crime No.195/2015. 2. The sum and substance of the complaint is that the complainant is the dealer of poultry feed. He has purchased poultry feed from Godrej Agrovet Limited. According to him, the goods supplied to him is of substandard quality. When he supplied it to the several of his customers they are said to have suffered loss in their business resulting in the death of nearly 63,000 birds. Hence, he has filed a complaint under Section 406, 420 and 149 of IPC. 3. If at all the material which is supplied by the said company to him is of substandard goods, it is open for him to initiate proceedings against the said company for 6 the loss, if any sustained by him. However, by any stretch of imagination the complaint can be accepted as establishing any triable offence against the petitioners herein who are accused Nos.1 to 25 in the said proceedings. 4. The reading of the complaint and this petition would clearly indicate that respondent No.2-complainant is making an attempt to convert civil litigation into criminal complaint by unnecessarily dragging all the employees of Godrej Agrovet Limited by arraigning them as accused before the learned Magistrate, so that in turn they may put pressure on their company for some sort of settlement with the complainant, which cannot be entertained. Therefore, in the instant case, this Court feel that, except to the extent that there was return of goods worth Rs.75,674/-, which is with reference to return of 56 bags of poultry feeds as the material of substandard, there cannot be any other accusation against Godrej Agrovet Limited. If that is accepted, he is entitled to recover from 7 them a sum of Rs.75,674/- which the Godrej Agrovet Limited may be liable to pay to the complainant. 5. In the meanwhile, the FIR in Crime No.195/2015 is concerned, it does not disclose commission or omission of any act against any of the accused Nos.1 to 25 punishable for the offences under Section 406, 420 and 149 of IPC. With such observation, this petition is allowed. The prosecution initiated against the petitioners herein in crime No.195/2015 is hereby quashed. 6. At this juncture, some of the petitioners who are officers of Godrej Agrovet Limited state that, their management is due to the complainant to an extent of Rs.75,674/-, which is the value of 56 bags, which are returned by him. Hence, they seek permission of this Court to send the said amount by way of demand drafts to him. They are permitted to do so. Sd/- JUDGE MBS/-.