Karnataka High Court
Altico Capital India Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4211/2020
BETWEEN:
1. ALTICO CAPITAL INDIA LIMITED,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 21,
2ND FLOOR, 5 NORTH AVENUE,
MAKER MAXITY, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA(E), MUMBAI - 400 051.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
MR.DARSHAN ARVIND GANGOLLI.
2. DARSHAN ARVIND GANGOLLI,
S/O. ARVIND GANGOLLI,
AGED 50 YEARS,
21, 2ND FLOOR, 5 NORTH AVENUE,
MAKER MAXITY, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA(E), MUMBAI - 400 051.
3. MR.ROHIT GUPTA,
S/O MR.ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
21, 2ND FLOOR, 5 NORTH AVENUE,
MAKER MAXITY, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA(E), MUMBAI - 400 051.
4. MR.AMIT PACHISIA,
S/O MR. ASHARATAN PACHISIA,
AGED 41 YEARS,
21, 2ND FLOOR, 5 NORTH AVENUE,
2
MAKER MAXITY, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA(E), MUMBAI - 400 051.
5. MR.SANJAY GREWAL,
S/O MR. SATWANT SINGH GREWAL,
AGED 53 YEARS,
C/O ALTICO CAPITAL INDIA LIMITED,
21, 2ND FLOOR, 5 NORTH AVENUE,
MAKER MAXITY, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA(E), MUMBAI - 400 051.
6. MR.VARUN KEDIA,
S/O MR.AJAY KEDIA,
AGED 33 YEARS,
C/O OF ALTICO CAPITAL INDIA LIMITED,
21, 2ND FLOOR, 5 NORTH AVENUE,
MAKER MAXITY, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA(E), MUMBAI - 400 051. ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI V. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION
1ST MAIN ROAD, 198, SC ROAD,
SESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 020.
REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. UNISHIRE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.42, CASTLE STREET,
ASHOK NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
REPRESENTED BY MR.KIRTI K. MEHTA. ... RESPONDENTS
3
[BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1,
SRI G.S. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
(THROUGH V.C.)]
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
PCR.NO.7163/2020 BEFORE THE IV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU UNDER
SECTIONS 403, 405, 406, 419, 420, 421, 465, 468, 471, 474,
120B AND SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to set aside the order dated 04.08.2020 passed in PCR
No.7163/2020 referring the matter to the jurisdictional police for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. with a direction to
register the FIR and submit the report.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent
No.2 herein had filed the private complaint before the learned
Magistrate which is numbered as PCR No.7163/2020 invoking
the offences under Sections 403, 405, 406, 419, 420, 421, 465,
468, 471, 474 read with Sections 34 and 120B of IPC. The
learned Magistrate having received the complaint, heard the
counsel for the complainant and passed the order as follows:
"Scrutinized the complaint. Grounds made out.
Matter is referred to the jurisdictional Police Station
i.e. Seshadripuram Police Station, Seshadripuram for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. with a
direction to register the FIR."
Hence, the present petition is filed before the Court challenging
the order on the ground that the learned Magistrate has not
applied his judicious mind while referring the matter under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
submit that there is no need to pass any detailed order and the
very order discloses that the learned Magistrate had scrutinized
the complaint and the same made out the grounds. Hence, in
accordance with Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., referred the matter
for investigation and hence no interference is required.
4. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents
and having perused the order of the learned Magistrate referred
supra, the learned Magistrate has not made any observation with
regard to the complaint averments made in the complaint and
the documents produced along with the complaint and makes
out the case to refer the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of MAKSUD SAIYED
v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 5
SCC 668 has categorically held that while exercising the
discretionary powers, the Magistrate has to apply his mind while
ordering police investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Without applying the mind on these principles and not
considering the material on record and passing the mechanical
order amounts to an abuse of process of law.
5. Having perused the principles laid down in the
judgment referred supra, the Apex Court has categorically held
that the learned Magistrate before referring the matter has to
apply his judicial mind and look into the contents of the
complaint and the documents enclosed along with the complaint
and thereafter form an opinion as to whether it is a fit case to
refer the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. or to take up
the matter by the Court itself taking the cognizance. Now the
order passed by the learned Magistrate is a pre-cognizance order
and referred the matter without application of mind. Hence, it is
a fit case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 04.08.2020 is set
aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned
Magistrate to consider the matter afresh in the
light of the principles laid down by the
judgment referred supra and to apply his
judicious mind and pass an appropriate order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
