Mohammed Ayub vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court held that while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it must examine the contents of the complaint to determine if a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed. If the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, the Court should refrain from interfering and allow the investigating officer to probe the matter. The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, which states that if a complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, the Court should stay its hand. In this case, the Court found specific allegations against the petitioner regarding the marketing of fake sanitizer with only 25% alcohol, supported by a report. The bills produced by the petitioner were disputed by the State as not being for sanitizers but for furniture and mattresses. Therefore, the Court concluded that the investigating officer must be allowed to investigate and unearth the crime as per the procedure established in Cr.P.C. The petition was rejected, but the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Court after the filing of the final report, if necessary.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammed Ayub, approached the High Court of Karnataka under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash an FIR registered against him in Crime No. 125/2020 by the Sudgunte Palya Police Station. The FIR was for alleged offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The State registered the case based on information that fake sanitizers were being marketed and sold. Police seized unlabeled sanitizer. The petitioner contended that his company, Supmenz Chemicals Private Limited, was authorized to manufacture and sell personal care products, including sanitizers. He claimed to have purchased sanitizer from Royal Traders, supported by bills totaling Rs. 1,63,548/-, on which GST was paid. The State argued that the seized sanitizer contained only 25% alcohol instead of the required 75%, and the bills relied upon by the petitioner were allegedly fake and related to furniture and mattresses, not sanitizers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered in Crime No. 125/2020 under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner for marketing and selling fake sanitizer discloses a prima facie cognizable offence, warranting the quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his company was duly authorized to manufacture and sell personal care products, including sanitizers. He presented bills for the purchase of sanitizer, asserting that GST was paid on these transactions, thereby demonstrating the legitimacy of the sale. He contended that the allegations of marketing adulterated sanitizer were false and that the Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR. Respondent's (State) arguments: The State contended that the seized sanitizer was found to contain only 25% alcohol, falling short of the mandatory 75% requirement. Furthermore, the State alleged that the bills produced by the petitioner were fake and did not pertain to the purchase of sanitizers but rather to furniture and mattresses. The State argued that these discrepancies necessitated further investigation by the police.