- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11029 CRL.P No. 102626 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102626 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MURALI KRISHNA GOGINENI S/O. VIJAY BHASKAR GOGINENI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF DEVISRI ENTERPRISES, HAVING PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT: ASHOKNAGAR, FLAT NO.226/A/3, RR COMPLEX, SIRUGUPPA MAIN ROAD, BALLARI-583 101. (ADDRESS SHOWN AS PER GST REG.06) … PETITIONER (BY SRI. NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PESTICIDE INSPECTOR AND AGRICULTURE OFFICER, RAITHA SAMPARKA KENDRA, KOGALI, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, BALLARI-583 212, R/BY SPP, PREMISES HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.3/PETITIONER IN CC NO.335/2025 ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.07/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 29(1) OF THE INSECTICIDES ACT, 1968, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, BALLARI AT ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11029 CRL.P No. 102626 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused no.3 is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.335/2025 pending before the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli, arising out of PCR.No.7/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Private complaint was filed before the jurisdictional court of Magistrate at Hagaribommanahalli, by the respondent alleging that accused no.1-company had manufactured sub-standard insecticides and the same was recovered from the shop of the petitioner who had kept the product of the company for sale in his shop. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner had valid license issued under the statute for stock and exhibition for sale of insecticides. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11029 CRL.P No. 102626 of 2025 5. In the case of Devanand Vs State of Karnataka (Crl.P.No.200937/2024 disposed of on 01.02.2025), in paragraph 15, this Court has observed as under: “15. For the purpose of prosecuting a person for the offences punishable under the Act, the prosecution is primarily required to show that the accused was either aware of the quality and contents of the product or that he had control as regards quality and contents of the product manufactured by the company. In the case on hand, the sample was seized from sealed covers from the bags in which the insecticide manufactured by accused No.3/company was stocked/exhibited for sale by accused Nos.1 and 2 in their retail shop/showroom. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not responsible for the quality or contents of the product manufactured by accused No.3/Company and there is no such allegation in the complaint that petitioners had stocked or displayed the product of the Company knowing very well that the said product was of substandard quality. Petitioners being the owners of the shop/showroom, in which products of the Company was stocked/exhibited for sale, cannot be held vicariously liable and be penalized for misbranding of the product in respect of which they were not involved in the manufacturing process. Petitioners are not the importers of the seized insecticide. Petitioners have produced copy of valid licence issued to them to stock or exhibit for sale of insecticides. There is no allegation against the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11029 CRL.P No. 102626 of 2025 petitioners that they were indulged in sale of insecticide which were not registered under the Act or prohibited under Section 27 of the Act and therefore, Sections 17 or 18 of the Act, cannot be invoked against them. There is no such allegation in the complaint that petitioners had not stored the insecticide properly in their showroom/retail shop. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that if respondent is allowed to prosecute the petitioners for the alleged offences, the same would amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, the impugned proceedings is liable to be quashed as against the petitioners.” 6. If the analogy that every person who has even stocked sub-standard insecticides is liable to be prosecuted for the alleged offence is accepted, then even the purchasers of the insecticide from the retail shop/showroom may have to face the prosecution in a given case, and therefore such an analogy cannot be accepted. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings as against the petitioner who is the owner of the shop in which the sub- standard insecticides manufactured by accused no.1-company for sale was kept for sale, if allowed to continue, would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the following order: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11029 CRL.P No. 102626 of 2025 7. Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.335/2025 pending before the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli, arising out of PCR.No.7/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, stands quashed, in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein is concerned. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 84