- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2247 WP No. 101891 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 101891 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SAI AGRO TRADERS R/BY ITS PROPRIETOR SUGIRAPPA, S/O. ANDANAPPA LAXMESHWAR, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, SINDHE COMPLEX, NEELIGIN ROAD, HUBBALLI-580029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. KORISHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MYTRI INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR, AND AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FORMER COMMUNICATION CENTRE, ANNIGERI, TQ: NAVALGUND, NOW AT NEWLY ORGANIZED TALUK, ANNIGERI, DIST: DHARWAD, RAIT SAMPARK KENDRA, ANNIGERI, PIN-582 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 05/010/2019 OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND REGISTERING THE CASE IN C.C NO.67/2020, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, AT NAVALAGUND, VIDE ANNEXURE-B, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER (ACCUSED) IS CONCERNED. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 11:17:57 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2247 WP No. 101891 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the cognizance taken for the offence punishable under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. 2. The respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) on 06.03.2019, i.e., after a lapse of 3 years and 8 months. The complaint states that during an inspection of the shop belonging to accused No.3 on 07.09.2015, samples of the subject insecticide manufactured by accused No.1 were collected and sent to the insecticide analyst for examination. The insecticide analyst’s report, received by the Insecticide Inspector on 01.12.2015, opined that the insecticide manufactured by accused No.1 did not meet the required specifications. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 4. Accused No.1 is the manufacturer of the subject insecticide, while accused Nos.2 and 3 are dealers. However, no sample of the subject insecticide was drawn from the shop of accused No.2 to establish that accused No.2 was a dealer in the said insecticide and that it was of substandard quality. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine of up to ₹50,000, or both. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2247 WP No. 101891 of 2023 5. In view of the above, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.67/2020 pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Navalagund, Dist:Dharwad, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.2 stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34