IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3093 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

MR KANIK NALIK AGED 58 YEARS EARLIER DIRECTOR M/S PEPSI CO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT LTD R/O 1907A, MAGNOLIAS GOLF DRIVE ELF PHASE V GURUGRAM 122009 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANTH V. G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA Di gitally BY INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY, signed by FLYAING SQUAD-I CHANDANA B M NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD Location: BENGALURU-560052 High Court of REP BY SPP Karnataka HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-01 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA HCGP)

CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1682/2012 (ANNEXURE-B)

ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NELAMANGALA AND GRANT SUCH FURTHER AND OTHER ORDERS AND / OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the Complaint (Annexure-A) and the subsequent proceedings in C.C.1682/2012 (Annexure-B) pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC at Nelamangla and grant such further and other orders and/or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner – accused No.6 and leaned HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1682/2012 are instituted by the respondent – complainant against the petitioner – accused No.6 and other accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 49 and 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

4. In this context, it is pertinent to note that insofar as accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 are concerned, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court have quashed the impugned proceedings by coming to the conclusion that the Company had not been arraigned as party- accused to the proceedings in relation to accused Nos.1, 4 and 5. Naveen Sharma Vs. State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.6211/2016 dated 29.03.2021 in relation to Accused No.1, Mr.Kaushik Mitra Vs. State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.6178/2022 dated 19.09.2022 in relation to Accused No.5 and Mr. Rajiv Wakhle Vs. State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.3108/2023 dated 23.08.2023 in relation to Accused No.4.

5. In Naveen Sharma’s case supra, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:

“ORDER "Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.1682/2012 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala against the petitioner amount to abuse of process of the Court?", is the question involved in this case.

2. During 2012, petitioner was the General Manager of M/s Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural district ('Pepsi company' for short). The second respondent/Inspector of Legal Metrology, Flying Squad-1 claims to have visited the plant of Pepsi company on 26.04.2012 at

9.45 a.m.

3. During such inspection the squad found that the petitioner and others violating Rule 8(1) and 2(h) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 had affixed the MRP of the product on the neck of the bottle instead of on the label. Therefore, he filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as per Annexure-A before the JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District to prosecute the petitioners and 5 others for the offences punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 ('the Act' for short).

4. Accused Nos.2 to 6 are said to be the directors of Pepsi company. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the acc