S.M. Uday Shankar S/O Mahanthappa vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1531 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                           BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

               WP NO 105075 OF 2021 (GM_RES)
BETWEEN
S.M. UDAY SHANKAR S/O MAHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT. DOOR NO.717, 2ND, D CROSS,
8TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU.
                                                 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B ANWAR BASHA, ADV.,)

AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560001

2 . CHITTI BABU
CHIEF MINISTERIAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, BALLARI
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1 )

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1458/2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS    403,406,409,420,465,466,468,471,474,381,120(B),511
AND 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AGAINST THE GANDHINAGAR
POLICE STATIN, BALLARI.
                                2




       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
  COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

1. Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

proceedings in C.C.No.1458/2017 pending before the Prl.

Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari for the offences punishable

under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474,

381, 120 (B), 511 and 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri. B.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri. Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for the

respondent-State.

3. Facts as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:

On 20/6/2017 at about 2.30 p.m. one H.F.Shafi,

Accounts Sheristedar of the Court received a message from

one Sri.Gopi S/o Subramani from Bangalore along with

advocate for having presented the fixed deposit receipt for

a sum of Rs.54,32,000/- deposited in the name of the

learned Prl.Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari in O.S.No.95/2011

for its encashment, from the State Bank of Mysore, main

branch, Ballari. These facts when confronted to the accused

leads to confession statement given by the accused Nos.1

to 3.

Prior to the said confession statement based upon the

complaint a crime is registered in Crime No.111/2017 for

the aforesaid offences. When the statements were

recorded, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the said confession

statement, the name of the petitioner figures as being a

part of the conspiracy. The police after investigation have

filed a charge sheet. The narration in the charge sheet

insofar as it concerns the petitioner are as follows:

                 " 1)              §¼Áîj UÁA¢ü£U À g
                                                   À À ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ
        ¸Àgº
           À ¢
             À Ý £°
                  À ègÀĪÀ WÀ£À f¯Áè £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DªÀgt    À zÀ M¼ÀUÉ
        EgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¦æ¤ì¥¯       À ï ¹.eÉ.JA.£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è F
        zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥Àvz     Àæ °
                                  À è PÁ®A £ÀA.12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ
        DgÉÆæ-1 ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ, J¸ï.r.J ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀg¸          À ÀÜ£ÁVzÀÄÝ F
        »AzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 31/05/2017 gÀªÀgÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå §¼Áîj ¦æ¤ì¥¯          À ï

¹.eÉ.JA.£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë - 2 gÀªj À UÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÁV PÀvð À ªÀå ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£ÀU¼ À À°è, DgÉÆæ - 1 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀbÃÉ j C¯Áägz À ènÖzÀÝ O.S.No.95/11¥ÀPæ g À ° À t À PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÁ®A £ÀA.11, ¦.J¥sï £ÀA.39 gÀ°èAiÀÄ gÀÆ: 64 ®PÀëU¼ À À Mjf£À¯ï J¥sï.r.¨ÁAqÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦.J¥sï.£ÀA.41/17 gÀ°è PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå-2

gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ gÀÆ.54.32 ®PÀëU¼ À À Njd£À¯ï J¥sï.r ¨ÁAqï UÀ¼£À ÀÄß PÀ¼ª À ÀÅ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqs¥ À ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛz.É

3) ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ gÀÆ.54,32,000/- UÀ¼À J¥sï.r.ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß §¼Áîj SBI(ºÀ¼ÃÉ SBM)¨ÁæAZï¤AzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ©r¹PÉƼÀî®Ä DgÉÆæ -1 gÀªg À ÀÄ DgÉÆæ-4 gÀªÀjUÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgAÀ vÉ DgÉÆæ-4 gÀªgÀ ÀÄ, DgÉÆæ-2, 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 gÀªg À ÉÆA¢UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 20/06/2017gÀAzÀÄ §¼ÁîjUÉ §AzÀÄ, DgÉÆæ-4 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀg£ À ÀÄß §¼Áîj J¸ï.©.L (ºÀ¼ÃÉ SBM Main) ¨ÁæAZï¤AzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ©r¹PÉƼÀî®Ä PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ, DgÉÆæ-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ-3 gÀªg À ÉÆA¢UÉ ¨ÁåAPï ªÉÄãÉÃdgï DzÀ ¸ÁQë -11 gÀªÀjUÉ ¨sÃÉ nAiÀiÁV vÁ£Éà UÉÆæ (¥Ánð) JAzÀÄ PÁ®A £ÀA.11, ¦.J¥sï.£ÀA.41/2017 gÀ°èAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå-2 jAzÀ 8 PÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹ ºÀt gÀÆ.54,32,000/- UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÀ£Àß SBI ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¨ÁæAZï ¨ÁåAPï CPËAmïUÉ mÁæ£Àì¥gÀ ï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÁQë-11 ªÉÄãÉÃdgï gÀªj À UÉ PÉýPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqs¥ À ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛz.É

7) DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå §¼Áîj ¦æ¤ì¥Á¯ï ¹.eÉ.JA. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ O.S.No.95/11 ¥ÀPæ Àgt À zÀ 2 Njf£À¯ï J¥sï.r.¨ÁAqïUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÀ¼ª À ÀÅ ªÀiÁr, DgÉÆæ-2 jAzÀ 5 gÀªgÀ ÉÆA¢UÉ M¼À¸AÀ ZÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ, DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ O.S.No.95/11 ¥ÀPæ g À ÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £ÀP° À j°Ã¸ï EAnªÉÄõÀ£ï DqÀðgï£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß PÉʧgÀºz À À°è §gÉzÀÄ, vÀAiÀiÁj¹ CzÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ-4 gÀªj À UÉ ¤Ãr, DgÉÆæ-2 jAzÀ 5 gÀªÀg® É ègÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÀt gÀÆ.54,32,000/-UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ®¥ÀmÁ¬Ä¸À®Ä PÀÈvÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr C¥ÀgÁzsÀª¸ É ÀVgÀÄvÁÛg.É DgÉÆæ-1 jAzÀ 5 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆÃæ ºÀ ªÀiÁr, ªÀAa¸ÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ, zÀ¸ÁÛªÃÉ dÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¸ÀȵÀ×¹, ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÀàµÀÖ£AÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr, CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÊdªÉA§AvÉ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹, ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr, ¸ÀéwÛ£À C¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂPÀªÁV zÀÄ«ð¤AiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀA æ iÀÄwß¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛz.É

4. In the light of the aforequoted summary of the charge

sheet what can be unmistakably gathered, albeit prima facie

is the involvement of the petitioner as well as the narration is

that, the petitioner was instrumental in communicating with

the bank and the accused for getting the amount of

Rs.54,32,000/- released from the State Bank of Mysore and

have all together hatched a conspiracy to siphon off fixed

deposit amount, with the allegations being thus and the

result of the investigation as aforequoted, the contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no

allegation against the petitioner, it is only on the basis of

confession statement of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 the entire

proceedings are initiated, cannot be accepted.

5. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surinder Kumar

Khanna V/s. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue

Intelligence in Crl.P.No.949/2018, the Apex Court in the said

case held that there cannot be conviction on the basis of a

confession statement of the co-accused.

6. The facts obtaining in the case before the Apex Court

are entirely different from the facts in the case at hand. The

involvement of the petitioner is clearly bought out in the

summary of the charge sheet quoted supra. Therefore, it is

for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial, if his

involvement is only on the basis of the confession statement

made by the accused Nos. 1 to 3. This is not a case where

this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. would interfere with the trial against the

petitioner, that too in the teeth of the aforequoted facts and

the charge sheet filed by the police. The writ petition lacks

merit and is dismissed.

SD JUDGE Vb/-