Mahesh Kumar Anam vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1437 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.7104/2020

BETWEEN:

MR. MAHESH KUMAR ANAM,
S/O VENKATASUBBA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT No.27, 2ND FLOOR,
10TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK COLONY,
BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD,
K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036.                 ... PETITIONER

       [BY SRI ARAVIND KAMATH K., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
                SRI ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE]

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       HAL POLICE,
       REP. BY SPP,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     MR. NARENDRA BABU,
       GENERAL MANAGER-SALES AND
       AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
       M/S. MOTOR WORLD PVT. LTD.,
       AT 46/3A, KUDLU GATE, 7TH MILE,
       HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 068.    ... RESPONDENTS

             [BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1,
 SRI H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 (THROUGH V.C.)]
                                   2



      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR No.17/2020 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE IV A.C.M.M. AT BENGALURU INSOFAR
AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AT ANNEXURE-A.

      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 quash the FIR registered against the petitioner,

who has been arrayed as accused No.3.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the

complainant in the complaint made the allegation that accused

Nos.1 and 2, who are the employees of respondent No.2 were

indulged in cheating and caused loss to the tune of

Rs.1,00,50,000/-. Based on the complaint, the police have

registered the case. The case against the petitioner is that he

paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash in favour of accused

Nos.1 and 2 and took the possession of the vehicle worth more

than Rs.25 lakhs. After registration of the case, subsequently he

appeared before respondent No.2 and paid the balance amount

and the vehicle was registered in favour of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the allegations are made against accused Nos.1 and 2 and

there was no role of this petitioner. When the petitioner came to

know about the fraud committed by accused Nos.1 and 2, he

went and paid the amount and the vehicle was registered in

favour of the petitioner. When he has paid the consideration,

there cannot be any criminal proceedings against the petitioner

and the same amounts to abuse of process.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would

submit that the FIR is registered and there is material that the

petitioner also indulged in committing the fraud against

respondent No.2. The petitioner being a businessman made the

payment of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash to the vehicle worth of

Rs.25,00,000/- and took the possession of the vehicle. After

filing of the complaint only, the petitioner came forward to make

the payment and got the documents in his favour. The learned

counsel would submit that there is a prima facie material, which

discloses the involvement of the petitioner and hence the matter

has to be probed and there cannot be an order of quashing the

proceedings.

5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2

and on perusal of the complaint, specific allegation is made

against the employees of respondent No.2 Company, who

indulged in committing the fraud against the Company. The

petitioner himself in the petition has stated that he made the

payment of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash to accused No.1, who was an

employee of the Company through accused No.2 and after

making the payment of Rs.10,00,000/-, the vehicle was

delivered to the petitioner from the showroom. Having taken

note of the factual aspects and also the allegations made in the

complaint and the petitioner also does not dispute the fact that

he took the vehicle by paying Rs.10,00,000/- in cash in favour of

accused No.1. When the proceedings has been initiated based

on the complaint, this Court has to look into the contents of the

complaint averments, whether the complaint averments

discloses the registration of the case that prima facie material to

probe the matter, this Court would like to rely upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DINESHBHAI

CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT reported in

2018 (3) SCC 104, wherein it is held that once the Court finds

that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any

cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the

investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to

unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in

the Cr.P.C.

6. Having considered the factual aspects of the case

and when the petitioner took the vehicle by paying

Rs.10,00,000/- in cash from the custody of accused No.1, who is

an employee of respondent No.2, the Investigating Officer has to

probe the matter whether this petitioner also indulged in

committing the crime, as alleged in the complaint. Hence, it is

not a fit case to quash the FIR at this juncture. The

Investigating Officer has to unearth the crime in accordance with

law.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the

submission that the petitioner has already paid an amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- and vehicle is registered in favour of the

petitioner. The same cannot be a ground to quash the

proceedings and that payment is made subsequent to the

registration of the case.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD