- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7335 CRL.P No. 7998 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7998 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR. KOUSHIK AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, FIT AGRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 5TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560056. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY ITS INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR AND AGRICULUTRE OFFICER RAIT SAMPARK KENDRA, KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK-571426 REP BY SPP. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO i. QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 13.08.2021 IN C.C.NO.1436/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 29 OF INSPECTICIDES ACT, 1968 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KRISHNARAJAPETE AT ANNEXURE-G. ii. QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.1436/2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KRISHNARAJAPETE IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AT ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7335 CRL.P No. 7998 of 2023 ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "i) Quash the Order of taking cognizance dated 13.08.2021 in C.C.No.1436/2021 for offence punishable under Section 29 of Insecticides Act, 1968 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, at Krishnarajapete at ANNEXURE-G. ii) Quash the Complaint in C.C.No.1436/2021, pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, at Krishnarajapete in so far as the Petitioner is concerned at ANNEXURE-H." 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent filed a private complaint in PCR.No.199/2021 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 9, 13, 3(K) and 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 [for short, 'the Act']. In this context, it is relevant to state that according to the respondent - complainant, all the accused persons were the employees of M/s. FIT Agro India Private Limited and as such, they were liable to be punished for the aforesaid offences. 4. Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 reads as under: "33. Offences by companies.—(1) Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, or was responsible to the company for the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7335 CRL.P No. 7998 of 2023 conduct of the business of, the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly." 5. A perusal of the aforesaid provision will clearly indicate that it is incumbent upon the respondent - complainant to make the company as well as all the persons, who are responsible for the affairs and conduct of the business of the company as a party to the proceedings. In other words, in the absence of making the company, which is a juristic, independent and legal entity as a party as contemplated under Section 33 of the Act, the impugned proceedings would not be maintainable since the same would run contrary to the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Act and the same deserve to be quashed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7335 CRL.P No. 7998 of 2023 6. In the instant case, it is also relevant to state that a perusal of the Endorsement at Annexure-A dated 17.07.2023 will indicate that the petitioner is working as a Regional Manager of M/s. Action Agro India Private Limited since April 2010 and M/s. FIT Agro India Private Limited is a completely different, independent juristic and legal entity and consequently, the question of the petitioner being arraigned as accused No.2 in the present proceedings would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and on this ground also, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER a. The petition is hereby allowed. b. The impugned order dated 13.08.2021 [Annexure-G] and the compliant in C.C.No.1436/2021 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajapete qua the petitioner are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RB