- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8481 WP No. 45182 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 45182 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: ASHRAF S/O. ISMAIL AGED 40 YEARS, PROP: H.K. SPICES, SUPARI FACTORY, KELTHAJE MANE KANYADI VILLAGE, PENNANNU POST BELTHANGADI TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 214 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.R. SATENAHALLI, ADVOCATE (AB)) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, 2ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, BELTHANGADI TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 214 3. JOHN BAPTIST D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O. LATE FRANCIS D'SOUZA RESIDING AT HALEKKI NEW HOUSE SANOOR VILLAGE AND POST KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8481 WP No. 45182 of 2017 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS; DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY R-3 AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C 84/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT KARKALA AT ANNEX-A ARE AB INITIO NULL AND VOID OR ELIMINATE THE SAID PROCEEDINGS FORTHWITH AND ETC., THIS W.P., COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to constitute a Committee as required under Section 84 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act 1966 (for short, 'APMC') and to determine / assess actual dispute / claim between the petitioner and respondent No.3. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.3 filed the private complaint in P.C.No.316/2013 before the Trial Court alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short, 'N.I.Act') against the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8481 WP No. 45182 of 2017 petitioner. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered the case in C.C.No.84/2016. The petitioner being the accused was summoned to appear before the Trial court. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings as the same is null and void, and to direct respondent No.2 to constitute a Committee as required under Section 84 of APMC Act, and to determine the actual dispute between the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not addressed his argument in spite of giving sufficient opportunity and hence the same is taken as nil. Heard Smt.Rashmi Patel, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. B.S. Sachin, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record. 4. In view of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respondents, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8481 WP No. 45182 of 2017 My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS 5. It is the contention of respondent No.3 that the petitioner had purchased Arecanut from him and had issued the cheque in question towards payment of cost of the Arecanut. On presentation of the cheque for encashment, the same was dishonored as "payment stopped". It is stated that the petitioner deliberately instructed the Banker to stop payment and had not paid the cheque amount in spite of receipt of legal notice, thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered the criminal case. 6. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that in view of Section 84(1)(4) of the APMC Act, no suit or institution of proceedings shall be entertained by any Court in respect of dispute referred to in the said provision of the Act, without the previous sanction of the Marketing Committee. When such Marketing Committee is not constituted, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance in the matter. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8481 WP No. 45182 of 2017 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader place reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohammed Ashraf v. the Director of Agriculture Marketing1 connected with Mohammed Ashraf v. The Secretary2, to contend that the petitioner being one of the parties in the said writ petitions, suffered an order where the Co-ordinate Bench had considered similar contentions raised in the connected matters. 8. On going through the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court where a similar complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act was filed against the present petitioner, wherein similar contention was taken that in view of Section 84(1) of APMC Act, which provides for settlement of dispute between the licence holders, the complainant could not have filed the private complaint before the learned Magistrate. The Co-ordinate Bench held in that case that none of them were the licence holders, and therefore Section 84(1) of APMC Act is not at all applicable. It was also held that in view of the decision of this Court in M/s. S.B.Nagaraj and Co. v. M/s. Sri Ganesh Oil 1 W.P.No.37489/2017 order dated 12.12.2018 2 W.P.No.49223/2017 order dated 12.12.2018 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8481 WP No. 45182 of 2017 Mill3, the provisions of APMC Act will not have over-riding effect on the Central Enactment i.e. on the N.I.Act and hence, the provisions under State Enactment, as is made clear as per Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India, are not applicable insofar as the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is concerned, which is a Central Enactment. Since the question of law involved in the present case is already answered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to which the petitioner is party, I do not find any merits in the petition. Hence, I answer the above point in the ‘negative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Writ Petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2024 shall stand disposed off. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV/MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 3 ILR 1999 KAR 4020