Karnataka High Court
Micheal Floyd Eshwer vs State By on 17 February, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4761 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
MICHEAL FLOYD ESHWER
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O LATE B.S.ESHWER
R/AT BISALMANTHI
P.B.NO.44,
HYDER ALI ROAD (ABBA ROAD)
NAZARBAD
MYSURU - 570 017.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.H.JADHAV, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI JAYARAMA BHATT S., ADVOCATE
(VIDEO CONFERENCING))
AND:
1. STATE BY
NAZARABAD POLICE STATION,
MYSURU
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
(SINCE ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT
E.J VENNIGAN IS DEAD)
2. MISS. TILLY GIFFORD @ MATTILDA
C/O MARINA MEYN
AGED 35 YEARS
2
R/AT NO.63/A, AJ BLOCK
N.R. MOHALLA
MYSURU - 570 007.
(SINCE PETITIONER IN SLP 3335/2015
IN WHICH MATTER IS REMANDED)
N.R. MOHALLA POLICE STATION,
MYSURU.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M.SHEELVANT, SPP. I, A/W
SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI B.RAJA SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2
(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 05.04.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE IN
C.C.NO.85/2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A BY
ALLOWING THIS CRL.P. AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.12.2021, COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in Criminal Case No.85 of
2018 pending before the III Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Mysore and has also sought for quashing of
entire proceedings right from registration of FIR in
Crime No.46 of 2013.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present
petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
The petitioner claims to be a licensed professional
Class-I horse trainer since 1991. The avocation of the
petitioner is to train horses and run them at races
conducted at various places like Mumbai, Chennai,
Ooty and Kolkata. It is contended that the petitioner
got acquainted with the complainant - one late Edwin
Joubert Van Ingen - a Taxidermist by profession and a
member of the Mysore Race Club where he used to meet
the complainant quite often. The complainant was a
founder member of the said race club. Trophies were
distributed in the name of the complainant. It is that
amount of popularity the complainant had in the race
circle at Mysore.
3. On one occasion, during the month of
November/December 2004 the complainant appears to
have called the petitioner and informed him that he
possesses two immovable properties at Mysuru - one, a
factory and the other, a residential house and also a
coffee estate in Waynad District, Kerala State, and with
his old age, he is not in a position to maintain both the
properties and desired to dispose them off. The
petitioner was informed that he was willing to sell all the
three properties, if he would get an appropriate price for
the said properties. In furtherance of the desire to sell
all the properties, the complainant handed over all the
documents of his factory and requested the petitioner to
find a purchaser, who is willing to pay him an amount
of Rs.3/- crores by way of bank transaction and any
other higher value in cash.
4. The petitioner claims to have contacted a
builder and developer by name Sri K.V.Prasad who
showed keen interest in the property after inspecting
the same and met the complainant along with the
petitioner and agreed to purchase the factory for a
consideration of Rs.3/- crores. It is further contended
that the intended purchaser was directed to deposit the
amount in an escrow account in which the entire
transaction of the complainant was to be routed
through. A sale deed was also registered on 10.10.2005
in favour of Sri K.V.Prasad. It is the claim of the
petitioner that he was instrumental in getting the sale
done by procuring all the documents and all other
things for the same.
5. After execution of the sale deed, the
complainant asked the petitioner to find a similar
purchaser to sell the house property which according to
the petitioner was for a consideration of Rs.75/- lakhs.
The petitioner found the offer so attractive and informed
the complainant that he possesses some landed
properties below Nandi Hills and he would sell them and
arrange for payment of Rs.75/- lakhs and purchase the
property for himself. The petitioner claims to have sold
the property at Nandi Hills and paid the entire amount
of Rs.75/- lakhs in one stroke and purchased the said
house. The purchase was again through a sale deed
dated 14.11.2005.
6. It is further contended that since the
complainant continued to stay at the out-house of the
said property, the petitioner displayed all the animal
trophies that the complainant had in his possession
being a taxidermist in other portion of the property
apart from residing in one portion of the said property.
The reminder of the property was the Waynad Coffee
Estate which the complainant was intending to sell.
7. During the month of January of 2005, it
transpires that the complainant had informed the
petitioner that he had executed an agreement to sell
Waynad Coffee Estate in favour one Dr. Mohammed
Bashir and the said agreement would come to an end on
31.01.2005 and if the purchaser would not come
forward to get the property registered he would rescind
the contract. The petitioner claims to have been asked
by the complainant to develop the coffee estate as it was
in a dilapidated condition for 10 years. The agreement
entered into with Dr. Mohammed Bashir was rescinded
and the complainant executed a gift deed gifting the
entire coffee estate in favour of the petitioner. The gift
deed was registered on 1.02.2006.
8. It is further contended that the complainant
with an intention that his trophies should be protected
after his demise, got one of the minor children of the
petitioner in adoption in terms of an adoption deed
dated 29.04.2006. Further a Will was executed for the
remaining property viz., the bank account in favour of
the petitioner by way of registered Will dated
29.05.2005. Thus, all the properties belonging to the
complainant were either sold, bequeathed or gifted to
the petitioner.
9. After execution of the gift deed in favour of the
petitioner, a complaint was registered against the
petitioner for violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act, 1973 with regard to transactions between the
petitioner and the complainant. During all these
proceedings, it appears that the complainant died on
12.03.2013. After the death of the complainant, it is
the claim of the petitioner that he continued to be in
possession of all the properties mentioned (supra). A
complaint came to be registered against the petitioner
before the jurisdictional police in Crime No.46/2013 on
11.03.2013 alleging that the petitioner had defrauded a
foreign national, the complainant and knocked off all
his properties. After getting enlarged on bail, the
petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.3615 of 2013 before
this Court calling in question the entire proceedings in
Crime No.46 of 2013 which was registered for offences
punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420 and 464 of
the Indian Penal Code. The criminal petition was
allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2013
were quashed.
10. The complainant's legal representative
challenged the said order of quashing the proceedings
against the petitioner before the Apex Court. The Apex
Court by its order dated 01.08.2017 set aside the order
passed by this Court and directed restoration of
proceedings. After remand, the proceedings in Crime
No.46/2013 continued and the police after investigation
filed a charge before the competent Court. The
competent Court took cognizance of the offences
punishable under Section 120B, 201, 342, 384, 403,
406, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 506 of the IPC read with
Sections 39 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
It is at that juncture the petitioner has knocked the
doors of this Court for the second time in the present
petition.
11. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri C.H.
Jadhav appearing for the petitioner, learned Public
Prosecutor Sri V.M. Sheelvant representing the State
and the learned counsel Sri B.Raja Subramanya Bhat
appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant.
12. The learned senior counsel would submit that
the matter is purely civil in nature as there are
registered documents in favour of the petitioner - one a
registered sale deed executed by the complainant who
was then alive, a gift deed gifting the coffee estate and
an adoption deed taking the son of the petitioner for
adoption for protection of his property. All these
registered documents are still in existence in favour of
the petitioner and none of them have been annulled by
a competent Court of law. These matters being purely
civil in nature are given a colour of crime by certain
elements who want to disturb peaceful possession of the
properties by the petitioner.
13. He would submit that there are serious
discrepancies in registration of the crime, the FIR and
the statement taken during the investigation. The
learned senior counsel would take this Court through
the earlier order passed wherein the police diary was
summoned and kept in safe custody in the registry of
this Court, which would only show that all was not well
with the police against the petitioner. He would submit
that earlier this Court had considered every aspect of
the matter and quashed the proceedings holding the
plea that the petitioner wanted to knock of the property
was a figment of imagination of the complainant as
every document on which the prosecution placed
reliance to contend that it was a fraud were all
registered documents. He would place reliance upon
several judgments to contend that since the issue is
purely civil in nature, the Court should interfere with
the proceedings and pass appropriate orders. He would
place reliance upon certain judgments wherein the Apex
Court has delineated what should be the contents of
general diary and should not be made of fabricated false
entries in the case of SADHU SINGH v. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH - (1978) 4 SCC 428, para 7 and SHRI
BHAGWANT SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
DELHI - (1983) 3 SCC 344, para 17. He would submit
that the entire proceedings are vitiated on account of
fabrication in the general diary.
14. On the other hand, the learned State Public
Prosecutor Sri.V.M.Sheelvant, vehemently refutes the
contentions advanced by the learned senior counsel and
submits that there is no fabrication found in the general
diary; it is maintained in the manner that it should be
and there are so many transactions between the
complainant and the petitioner which were all
fraudulent. It is the case of the prosecution that the
petitioner taking advantage of the old age of the
complainant put the complainant in unlawful house
arrest in the outhouse of the house that the
complainant owned and on the threat of life got all the
documents of aforementioned properties executed. The
main witness to the case was one Smt. Tilly Gifford, a
relative of the complainant who in her statement
recorded in February 2013 narrates that both the
complainant and herself visited Deputy Commissioner
of Police, Mysore and later registered a complaint before
the Nazarbad Police Station in Crime No.46/2013
seeking to take action against the petitioner who had
created all the documents in respect of the property -
coffee estate and several other properties which bare
mention in the complaint.
15. The learned State Public Prosecutor would
further emphasise on the possession of the petitioner of
each of the properties. By threatening the complainant,
gift deed was obtained by the petitioner in respect of
coffee estate which runs into 253 acres situated in
Mananthavadi. He would further contend that he got
his minor son Karl Lindley Eshwar adopted by the
complainant and the adoption deed is signed by
accused Nos. 2 and 3 as witnesses to get the animal
trophies worth crores. The Bank accounts of the
complainant were all taken in the name of the petitioner
by obtaining a Will. The Bank accounts were in India,
UK. Company shares, animal trophies, animal leather,
gun and gun licence and all properties belonged to the
complainant. It is his contention that all these
documents were all executed under the life threat to an
old man or are fabricated and would further submit that
since these are disputed questions of fact, this Court
should not interfere in the proceedings at this juncture.
16. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material on record.
17. The afore-narrated facts not being in dispute
are not reiterated. The only issue that needs
consideration is, whether the case at hand merits
interference at this stage of proceedings. The entire
issue sprang from registration of a complaint against
the petitioner by the complainant Edwin Joubert Van
Ingen on 12-03-2013. The narration in the complaint is
as follows:
"The above named Complainant begs to
submit as follows:-
1. The Complainant is a Bachelor aged
101 years British National living in India
from last 100 years. Further he is also
owning a residential house and Coffee Estate
at Mananthawadi and Wynad District, Kerala
State.
2. The Complainant brings to the kind
notice the following few facts and also
request the Authority to take necessary and
proper action against Mr.Michael Floyd
Eshwer, S/o B.S.Eshwer, residing at 1/1,
Banaswadi Road, Cooke Town, Bangalore
560 005; who has duped the Complainant, by
cheating and creating documents
fraudulently, thereby earned unlawful gain
for himself all these years, and now put the
Complainant out of his house at the fag end
of his life. Mr.M.F.Eshwer came to the
Complainant as a Broker/middleman;
when he intend to sell their factory land
situated by the side of the house of the
Complainant 'Bissal Munti' and thus
gained the confidence in that
transaction. Mr.M.F.Eshwer represents
that he is a Horse Trainer and owns
horses at Dubai, Pune, Mumbai. Further
he represented that he knows all big
shots and he will obtain necessary
permission in accordance with law for
sale of the Coffee Estate of the
Complainant situated at Wyanad. The
Complainant believed his version and he
gave ownership documents in respect of
his residential house so also the Coffee
Estate. He took the signatures of the
Complainant now and then in different
papers including signatures to the
cheques. The Complainant came to know
that said M.F.Eshwer represents to the public
and Authority that he is the adopted son of
the Complainant. Now after taking all
benefits whichever is possible and after
putting the Complainant in bankruptcy; he
has now thrown out the Complainant from his
house and put him in a small shed without
facilitating any necessary things for his day-
to-day life.
The above are the few facts which will
clearly prove that Mr.M.F.Eshwer has cheated
the Complainant and misappropriated his
funds, valuable things so also dishonestly
created documents in his favour about the
ownership of the residential house as well as
the Coffee Estates of the Complainant:-
1. The Urban land bearing
S.No.2637; Old S.No.9, Khatha No.33 in
Erangare Village of Kasaba Hobli, Mysore
within Mysore City Municipal Corporation
where the residential house with other
buildings at Bissal Munti, Nazarbad Mohalla,
Mysore of the Complainant; worth more than
Rs.10,00,00,000/- in the present market
value, now changed to his name showing the
value of the property as Rs.2,37,94,500/- for
the Stamp Duty purpose and sale
consideration at Rs.75,00,000/- said to be
paid to the Complainant through Demand
Draft. In fact, the said amount was shown as
credited to the account of the Complainant;
and later on withdrew through cheques in
favour from time to time. In fact, the
Complainant never received any sale
consideration from Mr.M.F.Eshwer though it is
shown has paid to the Complainant. The
Complainant has not handed over the
possession of the house, but recently in the
guise of renovation of the main house ousted
the Complainant to the out-house, depriving
all the facilities.
2. The said M.F.Eshwer the accused,
has also created documents in his favour in
respect of the Wyanad Coffee Estate of the
Complainant; and the accused made the
complainant to believe that he will manage
the Coffee Estate of the Complainant and help
the Complainant in looking after the same in
the old age of the Complainant; and when the
Complainant thought of sale of the said
Coffee Estate. The accused told that he will
search for the buyer and also get necessary
permission from Reserve Bank of India for
sale of the said Coffee Estate. Now the
Complainant came to know that he has
created 'Gift Deed' in his favour and thereby
knocked off all that estate owned by the
Complainant without giving a single penny to
the Complainant; thereby dishonestly and by
breach of trust, transferred the ownership of
the entire Coffee Estate which worth more
than Rs.25,00,00,000/- at the present market
value. It is also reported that the Accused
has cut and sold all valuable trees thereby
earned a huge amount.
3. Mr.M.F.Eshwer had took the
Complainant to various offices including
Registration office at different point of time,
with false representation. It is also brought to
the knowledge of the Complainant recently
that he has made the Complainant to execute
a will bequeathing all that estate of the
Complainant, his bank deposits in India as
well as in U.K, company shares, animal
trophies, skins and Gun Licenses in his
favour after the death of the Complainant.
The Complainant has now cancelled the said
will and made his own arrangements for the
same in accordance with his wishes. The
Complainant further came to know that said
M.F.Eshwer has taken signatures of the
Complainant for creating nomination in his
name to Bank Account of the Complainant.
4. Mr.M.F.Eshwer has also took
cash amount lakhs of rupees from the
Complainant at different period with
assurance of investing the same in the
name of Complainant on various shares.
But, he has not invested any money in
his name rather used for his own
benefits. Mr.M.F.Eshwer also took the
staff of the Complainant into confidence
with false assurance and made them to
go against the Complainant or act
against his interest. The Said
M.F.Eshwer misrepresents that he has
the adopted son of the Complainant and
looking after him by providing medical
and workers payment etc., which is false
and mis-representation to the public.
5. Because of the age of the
Complainant, the Complainant is not in a
position to recollect all other misdeeds
done by the said M.F.Eshwer who has
cheated misappropriated, fraudulently
obtained the signatures of the
Complainant and also acted against the
interest of the Complainant all these
years. The Accused has not permitted
the Complainant to go out of the house
thereby confined the Complainant
wrongfully and after finishing all the
motivated work and after getting all
benefits from the Complainant,
transferred the ownership of movable
and immovable, Coffee Estate; thereby
dishonestly earned a huge amount. The
said M.F.Eshwer has cheated the
Complainant and thrown him out of his
own house.
6. The Complainant will furnish
all other particulars about the misdeeds,
criminal acts of Mr.M.F.Eshwer in the
course of enquiry.
Therefore, I Pray your good self to
take necessary legal action against
Mr.M.F.Eshwer by registering F.I.R
and also put the Complainant back
into his possession of his Coffee
Estate and house property so also of
the movable valuable things
mentioned here before as well as
other things which M.F.Eshwer has
retained for himself. The
Complainant also requests to give the
Complainant and his staff necessary
protection against the
threat/criminal acts which
Mr.M.F.Eshwer may take against
them to hide all his misdeeds.
Prays For Orders accordingly.
Mysore
Date:06/02/2013"
(Emphasis added)
The doubt with regard to date of registration of the
complaint is writ large as is contended by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner. The complaint is dated
6-02-2013 and it is received at the Police Station on
02-03-2013; it does bear another signature as 12-03-
2013 and also bears the signature of receipt of
complaint on 11-03-2013 at 18:45 hours. It is this
complaint that becomes an FIR in Crime No.46/2013.
18. FIR itself is not registered separately is what is
contended, as endorsement of crime number is found in
the complaint itself. On this and other grounds, inter
alia, the petitioner had filed Criminal Petition
No.3615/2013 before this Court. This very ground
taken that the complaint is said to have been registered
on 11-03-2013 at 6.45 p.m. and finding various
discrepancies in the registration of the complaint itself,
this Court allowed the criminal petition. This was called
in question before the Apex Court in S.L.P.(Criminal)
No.3555 of 2015. The Apex Court on considering the
entire matter observed as follows:
"9. We have extracted the aforesaid
findings (which clearly appear to be against
the respondent-accused) only to highlight the
fact that the statements on which reliance
has been placed have been appreciated by
the Inquiry Officer and conclusions have been
drawn and reached, which fact would be
suggestive of an imminent requirement of
appreciation of materials to be unraveled by a
proper investigation so as to arrive at the
necessary findings of the core issue i.e., the
legal existence of a valid FIR. However,
taking into account the fact that the
inquiry was conducted pursuant to the
order of the High Court to unravel the
truth surrounding the lodging of the FIR
and was not a step in the investigative
process which, in any case, has been
interdicted by the High Court by the
impugned order, we do not consider it
prudent to come to one conclusion or the
other with regard to the said findings.
However the findings of the inquiry
would clearly indicate that a large
volume of material facts surrounding the
lodging of the FIR and its authenticity
needs to be investigated and the truth
unraveled. But this is what has been
interdicted by the High Court. In the
above situation, we find ourselves unable
to agree with the view taken by the High
Court. On the contrary, we are of the
opinion that the FIR in question should
be fully investigated in accordance with
law and thereafter further legal
consequences as may be warranted
should be allowed to take effect. We
order accordingly and direct the completion of
the investigation within sixty days from
today, whereafter steps in accordance with
law will follow.
10. We consequently set aside the
order of the High Court dated 19-06-2014
released on 22-05-2015 and dispose of
the appeal in the above terms.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court clearly observed that the statements on
which reliance was placed by the accused have been
appreciated by the Investigating Officer and conclusions
have been drawn and reached, which fact is suggestive
of an imminent requirement of appreciation of materials
to arrive at the finding on the core issue of legal
existence of a valid FIR and directed completion of
investigation within 60 days from the date of dismissal
of the SLP - 01.08.2017. Observing thus, the order
passed by this Court was set aside. After the said
investigation, the final report/charge sheet, is filed by
the police before the competent Court and the
competent Court has taken cognizance of the afore-
quoted offence against the petitioner. The result of
investigation is found in Column No.17 which contains
various allegations against the petitioner. The findings
of investigation as found in Column No.17 read as
follows:
"ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ £ÀdgÀ¨Ázï ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ
ªÉÆ.£ÀA:46/2013 PÀ®A: 201, 342, 384, 403, 406, 409,
420, 465, 468, 506, 120(©) L¦¹ eÉÆvÉUÉ PÀ®A 39, 51
ªÀ£Àåfë ¸ÀAgÀPÀÕuÁ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1972 ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt
¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ PÁ®A £ÀA: 17
DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ «ªÀgÀ:-
1) ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥sÁèAiÀiïØ F±Àégï ©£ï ©.J¸ï.F±Àégï, 48 ªÀµÀð,
¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ£À zÀvÀÄÛ ¥ÀÄvÀæ£ÉAzÀÄ zÁR¯É
¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶֹPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è ¸ÀévÀ:
¨sÁVAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
2) ©.zsÀªÀÄðUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀ
¸ÉßûvÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è ¸ÀévÀ: ¨sÁVAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
3) qÉjPï jUÉÆÃ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ J1 gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀgÁVzÀÄÝ
PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è ¸ÀévÀ: ¨sÁVAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
4) qÁ|| J£ï.ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgÀ ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï J¸ï.£ÀgÀ¹AºÀgÁªï
DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀ, ¸ÀAa£ÀAvÉ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¸ÀȶֹPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ªÉâ¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ,
ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ £ÀÀdgÁ¨Ázï ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄÄ WÀ£À
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ C¢üPÁgÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÁVzÀÄÝ, £ÀdgÀ¨Ázï
¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ºÉÊzÀgÁ° gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ
©¸Á¯ïªÀÄAn §AUÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«zÀÝ Jré£ï eÉÆçmïð
ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ©ænµï ¥ÀæeÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, C«ªÁ»vÀ
M¨ÉÆâAnUÀ£ÁV ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï
mÁåQìqÀ«Äð PÁSÁð£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÉøï
PÀè¨ï£À°è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁVzÀÄÝ, 1999 gÀ°è ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï & ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï
mÁåQìqÀ«Äð ¥sÁåPÀÖjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄaÑgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, 2005 gÀ ¸Á°£À°è
ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ 92 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĹì£À ªÀÈzÀÝgÁVzÀÝgÀÄ. DgÉÆæ
ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥sÁèAiÀiïØ F±Àégï gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£ÀߣÀÄß CPÀæªÀÄ §AzsÀ£ÀzÀ°èj¹
ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr ¸À»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, ªÀAa¹ vÀ£Àß J¸ÉÖÃmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ£ÉAzÀÆ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁR¯ÁwUÀó¼À£ÀÄß
¸Àȶֹ ¸ÀéwÛ£À C¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂPÀ zÀÄ«ð¤AiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ£ÀUÉ
ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ£ÉAzÀÆ DvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ£ÀUÉ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ£Àß PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀjUÉ gÀPÀëuÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ Jré£ï eÉÆçmïð
ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.03.2013gÀAzÀÄ
£ÀdgÁ¨Ázï ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¦nµÀ£ï gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ¹éÃPÀj¹,
EzÉà zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.03.2013 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀdgÁ¨Ázï
¥Éưøï oÁuÉ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.46/2013 PÀ®A 403, 409, 420, 464
L¦¹ jÃvÁå under FERA 1973 then it is a
violation of the terms and conditions of
the holding license." JAzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁzÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ
¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, CAzÀgÉ ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥ÁèAiÀiïØ F±ÀégïUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
«zsÀzÀ°è ©ænµï gÁµÀÖçzÀ ¥ÀæeÉAiÀiÁzÀ Jré£ï ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ
RBI C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà D¹Û ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀiÁzÀgÀÆ
CzÀPÉÌ PÁ£ÀƤ£À ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ E®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁzÀ
C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÁVgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ®Æ ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥ÁèAiÀiïØ F±Àégï
ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄ£ÀßuÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR 6 ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ WÀ£À
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÀ®A: 164 ¹.Dgï.¦.¹ C£ÀéAiÀÄ vÀªÄÀ ä ºÉýPÉ
¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQëzÁs gÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥ÁèAiÀiïØ F±Àégï
ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀjUÉ 92 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÁìVzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß
PÁgÀtªÁVlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ «±Áé¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÀ½¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÆøÀ
ºÁUÀÆ «±Áé¸ÀzÉÆæúÀªÉ¸ÀV ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀjAzÀ zÀvÀÄÛ ¥ÀvÀæ, ¸Éïï
rÃqï, V¥sïÖ rÃqï, «¯ï ¥ÀvÀæUÀ½UÉ ¸À» ºÁQ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ
CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉzÀj¹ ©¸Á¯ï ªÀÄAn ªÀģɬÄAzÀ OmïºË¸ïUÉ
CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹ CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÉÆA¢UÀÆ ¨ÉgÉAiÀÄzÀAvÉ
CPÀæªÀĪÁV PÀÆrºÁQ §AzsÀ£ÀzÀ°è EnÖzÀÝ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀjUÉ
Hl wArUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°ènÖzÀÝ£ÀÄ.
Jré£ï eÉÆçmïð ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï AiÀiÁjUÀÆ vÀ£Àß ªÉÄïÉ
£ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ. F±Àégï PÉlÖ ªÀåQÛ,
£À£ÀߣÀÄß G½¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀºÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ
JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ £ÁªÀÅ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ w½¸ÀzÉà ¸ÀĪÀÄä¤zÉݪÀÅ
JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀAZÁgÀ ¤UÀªÀÄ,
ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¹ÜgÀ zÀÆgÀªÁt ¸ÀA.2456684 PÀrvÀzÀ §UÉÎ
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀ ¹ÜgÀzÀÆgÀªÁtÂ
¸ÀASÉå 2456684 ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ©¯ï ¥ÁªÀwAiÀiÁUÀzÀ PÁgÀt
PÀrvÀUÉƽ¹zÀÄÝ ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß C¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ£ÁßV¸ÀĪÀ
zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ¯Éà DgÉÆæ 1 ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥sÁèAiÀiïØ F±Àégï F jÃw
ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è EzÀĪÀgÉ«UÀÆ, PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ
vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ®Æ, vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀ
zÁR¯ÉUÀ½AzÀ®Æ, ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ®Æ, ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï
gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄzÁV ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀ LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT ¢£ÁAPÀ: 31.12.2012, Dgï.©.L ¤AzÀ
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ¢AzÀ®Æ ºÉÆgÀ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ
DgÉÆæ 1 ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥sÁèAiÀiïØ F±Àégï vÀ£Àß ¸ÀºÀZÀgÀgÁzÀ
«.zsÀªÀÄðUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ qÉjPï jUÉÆà eÉÆvÉ ¸ÉÃj Jré£ï
eÉÆçmïð ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀ D¹ÛUÉ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÆ
E®èªÉAzÀÄ UÀ滹 J¯Áè D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ§½¸ÀĪÀ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ
Jré£ï eÉÆçmïð ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀAZÀÄ gÀƦ¹
£ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ªÀiÁr, ªÀAa¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ-1
ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥ÁèAiÀiïØ F±Àégï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉ¤ßAUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸Àé-EZÉѬÄAzÀ
«®è£ÁßUÀ°Ã, zÁ£À¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÁßUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÁßUÀ°Ã
ªÀiÁr®èªÉA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgɪÀiÁagÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÁUÉAiÉÄÃ
ªÀÄÈvÀgÁVzÀÝ ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.03.2013gÀ ¸Á«£À
¸ªÀÄAiÀÄzÀÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ ªÀiÁ»w
¤dªÀ®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¢zÀÝgÀÆ, ¤eÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa ¸ÀzÀj
¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß C£ÀÄPÀÆ®PÁÌV £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è §¼À¹
¨sÁ.zÀ.¸ÀA.201 gÀrAiÀÄ°è C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁPÁëzÁs gÀUÀ½AzÀ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£É¬ÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ
DgÉÆæ 1 ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥sÁèAiÀiïØ F±ÀégïgÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ®A: 201, 342,
384, 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 506 eÉÆvÉUÉ 120(©)
L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A 39, 51 ªÀ£Àåfë ¸ÀAgÀPÀëuÁ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1972
jÃvÀå PÀÈvÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ «.zsÀªÀÄðUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ïgÀªÀgÀÄ
DgÉÆæ 1 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ PÉÃgÀ¼ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29.05.2006
gÀ V¥ïÖ rÃqï£À°è ¸À» ªÀiÁr ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:
29.05.2006 gÀ «¯ïUÉÉ JQìPÀÄålgï DVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:
10.10.2005gÀ ¸Éïï rÃqï, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29.04.2006gÀ CqÁå¥Àë£ï
rÃqï, ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.08.2007gÀ CqÁå¥Àë£ï rÃqïUÀ½UÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁV
¸À»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr DgÉÆæ 1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀÈvÀåPÉÌ ¸ÀºÀPÀj¹,
ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ 5 ®PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¨ÁªÀ£ÉAiÀiÁV ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæ 2
«.zsÀªÀÄðUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ®A: 201, 342, 384, 403, 406,
409, 420, 465, 468, 506 eÉÆvÉUÉ 120 (©) L¦¹ jÃvÀå
PÀÈvÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
3£Éà DgÉÆæ qÉjPï jUÉÆà gÀªÀgÀÄ
¢£ÁAPÀ:29.05.2006 gÀ «¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ:29.04.2006 gÀ
CqÁå¥Àë£ï rÃqï UÀ½UÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁV ¸À» ºÁQ DgÉÆæ 1 gÀªÀgÀ
¸ÀAa£À°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁV ¦.Dgï.¥Áæ¥Ànð¸ï gÀªÀjAzÀ 75 ®PÀë
gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä PÀ«ÄõÀ£ï ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀÄ ªÀĹðr¸ï
¨É£ïÓ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß RjùzÀÄÝ D PÁgÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ 1 ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥sÁèAiÀiïØ
F±Àégï G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÁPÁëzÁs gÀUÀ½AzÀ
zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæ 3 qÉjPï eÉÆøɥïs jUÉÆÃ
gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ®A: 201, 342, 384, 403, 406, 409, 420, 465,
468, 506 eÉÆvÉUÉ 120(©) L¦¹ jÃvÀå PÀÈvÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæ 2 «.zsÀªÀÄðUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
DgÉÆæ 3 qÉjPï jUÉÆà gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ 1 ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥sÁèAiÀiïØ
F±Àégï gÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀAZÀÄ gÀƦ¹ DvÀ£À J¯Áè PÀÈvÀåUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ
¤Ãr PÀ®A: 342, 384, 406, 409, 420, 465, 506, 201,
120(©) L¦¹ jÃvÀå PÀÈvÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ 4£Éà DgÉÆæ qÁ|| J£ï.ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgÀ, D¢vÀå
C¢üPÁj D¸ÀàvÉæ, ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À°è ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï
¥ÁèAiÀiïØ F±ÀégïgÀªÀjUÉ Jré£ï ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄgÀtzÀ ªÀiÁ»w ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è £ÉÊdªÁzÀ ªÀÄgÀt
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸ÀzÉà wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁr ¨ÉÃgÉÆAzÀÄ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½®èzÉ aQvÁì «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ 1
ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥ÁèAiÀiïØ F±Àégï gÀªÀjUÉ PÀÈvÀåPÉÌ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀĪÀAvÉ
¤Ãr ¸ÀºÀPÀj¹ PÀ®A: 201 L¦¹ jÃvÁå C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ, ºÁUÉAiÉÄà ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr CªÀgÀ
PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥À¢AzÀ £ÀÄtÂaPÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀAZÀÄ
ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, DgÉÆæ-4 qÁ| |ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï gÀªÀgÀ PÀ®A 120(©)
L¦¹ jÃvÁå C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è E®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ
qÁ| |J£ï ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀĪÀAvÉ
JgÀqÀ£Éà ¨ÁjUÉ ªÉ¤AUÀ£ï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀtzÀ §UÉÎ vÀ¥ÀÄà
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ®èzÉà , AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ
E®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÉ¤AUÀ£ïgÀªÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è
EgÀ°®èªÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀĪÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ EzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæ 1
ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥sÁèAiÀiïØ F±Àégï UÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ
¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¹zÀÞ¥Àr¹ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀÄ PÀ®A:
201, 465, 120(©) L¦¹ jÃvÀå PÀÈvÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæ 4 qÁ|| J£ï.ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï
gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ®A: 197, 201, 465 gÉ/« 120(©) L¦¹ jÃvÀå
PÀÈvÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À jÃvÁå
DgÉÆæ 1 ªÉÄÊPÀ¯ï ¥ÁèAiÀiïØ F±Àégï, DgÉÆæ 2
«.zsÀªÀÄðUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï, DgÉÆæ 3 qÉjPï jUÉÆà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ
4 qÁ|| J£ï.ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ
¤ªÉâ¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ.
F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ 2005 jAzÀ 2013 gÀªÀgÉUÉ £ÀqÉzÀ
WÀl£ÉUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉÉ 2013gÀ°è zÁR¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÉ
¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¨ÁåAPï ªÀ»ªÁlÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ
zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÉZÀÄÑ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀAa£À°è E£ÀÆß AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÆ À
¨sÁVAiÀiÁVzÁÝgÉAiÉÄà JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀªÀÄUÀæ ªÀiÁ»w ¸ÀAUÀ滸À®Ä
ºÁUÀÆ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¸ÀAZÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV §AiÀÄ°UɼÉzÀÄ
vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉʹ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ
ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À®Ä PÀ®A: 173 (8) ¹Dg惡 jÃvÀå
vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è
¤ªÉâ¹PÉÆArzÉ."
(Emphasis added)
19. In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at
hand, the complaint, the disputed question with regard
to the complaint or the FIR being registered and the
charge sheet filed after investigation which prima facie
point out certain allegations against the petitioner are
seriously triable issues as they are surrounded with
seriously disputed questions of fact. In the
circumstances, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE
OF UTTAR PRADESH1 which reads as follows:
"11. Now so far as the finding recorded
by the High Court that no case is made out for
the offence under Section 406 IPC is
concerned, it is to be noted that the High
Court itself has noted that the joint notarised
affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously
disputed, however as per the High Court the
same is required to be considered in the civil
proceedings. There the High Court has
committed an error. Even the High Court has
failed to notice that another FIR has been
lodged against the accused for the offences
under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with
respect to the said alleged joint notarised
affidavit. Even according to the accused the
possession was handed over to them.
However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs
as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is
seriously disputed and even one of the
cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs
was dishonoured and according to the
accused they were handed over the
possession (which is seriously disputed) it
can be said to be entrustment of property.
Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case
is made out for the offence under Section 406
IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is
to be considered during trial. It is also
required to be noted that the first suit was
filed by Munni Devi and thereafter
subsequent suit came to be filed by the
accused and that too for permanent injunction
(2021) 9 SCC 35
only. Nothing is on record that any suit for
specific performance has been filed. Be that
as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are
required to be considered at the time of trial
only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has
grossly erred in quashing the criminal
proceedings by entering into the merits
of the allegations as if the High Court
was exercising the appellate jurisdiction
and/or conducting the trial. The High
Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482
CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred
in observing that original complaint has
no locus. The aforesaid observation is
made on the premise that the
complainant has not placed on record
the power of attorney along with the
counter filed before the High Court.
However, when it is specifically stated in
the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the
power of attorney and thereafter the
investigating officer has conducted the
investigation and has recorded the
statement of the complainant, accused
and the independent witnesses,
thereafter whether the complainant is
having the power of attorney or not is to
be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the
reasons stated above, the impugned
judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine
All 914] passed by the High Court
quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482
CrPC is unsustainable and the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside and
is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Now, the trial is to be conducted and
proceeded further in accordance with
law and on its own merits. It is made
clear that the observations made by this
Court in the present proceedings are to
be treated to be confined to the
proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only
and the trial court to decide the case in
accordance with law and on its own
merits and on the basis of the evidence to
be laid and without being influenced by
any of the observations made by us
hereinabove. The present appeal is
accordingly allowed."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the above decision has clearly held
that the High Court should not interfere in such cases
which bear serious triable issues in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
20. It is also trite law that merely because the
proceedings have a colour of being civil in nature,
criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. The Apex
Court in the case of PRITI SARAF v. STATE OF NCT
OF DELHI2 has held as follows:
"31. Be it noted that in the matter of
exercise of inherent power by the High Court,
the only requirement is to see whether
continuance of the proceedings would be a
total abuse of the process of the Court. The
Criminal Procedure Code contains a detailed
procedure for investigation, framing of charge
and trial, and in the event when the High
Court is desirous of putting a halt to the
known procedure of law, it must use proper
circumspection with great care and caution to
interfere in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
32. In the instant case, on a careful
reading of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in
our view, it cannot be said that the complaint
does not disclose the commission of an
offence. The ingredients of the offences under
Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be said to
be absent on the basis of the allegations in
the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would
like to add that whether the allegations in the
complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to
be decided on the basis of the evidence to be
led during the course of trial. Simply because
(2021) SCC Online SC 206
there is a remedy provided for breach of
contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at
the instance of the appellants, that does not
by itself clothe the court to come to a
conclusion that civil remedy is the only
remedy, and the initiation of criminal
proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse
of the process of the court for exercising
inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing such
proceedings.
33. We have perused the pleadings of
the parties, the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet
and orders of the Courts below and have
taken into consideration the material on
record. After hearing learned counsel for the
parties, we are satisfied that the issue
involved in the matter under consideration is
not a case in which the criminal trial should
have been short-circuited. The High Court
was not justified in quashing the criminal
proceedings in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction. The High Court has primarily
adverted on two circumstances, (i) that it was
a case of termination of agreement to sell on
account of an alleged breach of the contract
and (ii) the fact that the arbitral proceedings
have been initiated at the instance of the
appellants. Both the alleged circumstances
noticed by the High Court, in our view, are
unsustainable in law. The facts narrated in
the present complaint/FIR/charge-sheet
indeed reveal the commercial transaction but
that is hardly a reason for holding that the
offence of cheating would elude from such
transaction. In fact, many a times, offence of
cheating is committed in the course of
commercial transactions and the illustrations
have been set out under Sections 415, 418
and 420 IPC. Similar observations have been
made by this Court in Trisuns Chemical
Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal (supra):--
"9. We are unable to appreciate
the reasoning that the provision
incorporated in the agreement for
referring the disputes to arbitration is
an effective substitute for a criminal
prosecution when the disputed act is an
offence. Arbitration is a remedy for
affording reliefs to the party affected by
breach of the agreement but the
arbitrator cannot conduct a trial of any
act which amounted to an offence albeit
the same act may be connected with the
discharge of any function under the
agreement. Hence, those are not good
reasons for the High Court to axe down
the complaint at the threshold itself. The
investigating agency should have had
the freedom to go into the whole gamut
of the allegations and to reach a
conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of
such investigation would be justified
only in very extreme cases as indicated
in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992
Supp (1) SCC 335]"
34. So far as initiation of arbitral
proceedings is concerned, there is no
correlation with the criminal
proceedings. That apart, the High Court
has not even looked into the charge-sheet
filed against 2nd respondent which was
on record to reach at the conclusion that
any criminal offence as stated is prima
facie being made out and veracity of it
indeed be examined in the course of
criminal trial.
35. The submission made by Mr. P.
Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for
2nd respondent showing bonafides and taking
us through the documentary evidence
annexed to the counter affidavit on record to
show that it was a simple case of termination
because of breach of terms of the contract
giving rise to a purely civil dispute or initiation
of the arbitral proceedings would not attract
the provisions under Sections 406, 420, 34
IPC may not hold good at this stage for
the reason what is being suggested by
the learned counsel for the
2 respondent can be his defence during
nd
the course of trial but was not open to be
examined by the High Court to take a
judicial notice and for quashing of the
criminal proceedings in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
(Emphasis supplied)
It is also germane to notice two other judgments of the
Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH v. YOGENDRA SINGH JADON AND
ANOTHER3 wherein it is held as follows:
(2020)12 SCC 588
"5. We find that the High Court has
examined the entire issue as to whether
the offence under Sections 420 and 120-
B IPC is made out or not at pre-trial
stage. The respondents are beneficiary of
the grant of cash credit limit when their
father was the President of the Bank.
The power under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be
exercised where the allegations are
required to be proved in court of law. The
manner in which loan was advanced
without any proper documents and the
fact that the respondents are beneficiary
of benevolence of their father prima facie
disclose an offence under Sections 420
and 120-B IPC. It may be stated that
other officials of the Bank have been
charge-sheeted for an offence under
Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. The
charge under Section 420 IPC is not an
isolated offence but it has to be read
along with the offences under the Act to
which the respondents may be liable with
the aid of Section 120-B IPC.
6. Consequently, we find that the order
[Yogendra Singh Jadon v. State of M.P., CRR
No. 260 of 2014, order dated 2-5-2016 (MP)]
of the High Court quashing the charges
against the respondents is not sustainable in
law and the same is set aside. The appeal is
allowed. It shall be open to the respondents to
take such other action as may be available to
them in accordance with law."
(Emphasis supplied)
and in the case of RAJEEV KOURAV v. BAISAHAB AND
OTHERS4 wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
"5. A final report was filed on 19-7-2014
on completion of investigation. A petition
under Section 482 CrPC was filed for
quashing the criminal proceedings. It was
contended on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3
before the High Court that the ingredients of
Section 306 IPC have not been made out and
the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
According to Respondents 1 to 3, the FIR and
the charge-sheet would only disclose that the
entire family of the appellant was being
harassed. The respondents cannot be held
guilty of offence under Section 306 as there is
nothing on record to show that they have
incited the deceased to take the extreme step
of committing suicide.
6. The High Court summoned the record
of investigation and perused the statements
recorded by the appellant and his family
members under Section 161 CrPC. The High
Court held that statements recorded under
Section 161 CrPC would show that
Respondent 1 is a quarrelsome lady who has
threatened the appellant's family of false
implication in a criminal case. The High Court
observed that none of the persons whose
statements under Section 161 CrPC were
recorded have mentioned about the complaint
of the deceased and that she was thinking of
(2020) 3 SCC 317
committing suicide due to the harassment of
Respondents 1 to 3. The High Court recorded
a finding that Ramsharan Kourav, the uncle
of the deceased, has stated in his statement
under Section 161 that the deceased informed
him that she is unable to bear the torture of
Respondents 1 to 3 and was thinking of
putting an end to her life.
7. The High Court observed that the
allegations made against Respondents 1 to 3
at the most constitute an offence under
Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation.
Read as a whole, the allegations made
against Respondents 1 to 3 did not make out
an offence under Sections 306/34 IPC. The
High Court further held that ingredients of
Section 107 IPC are also not satisfied. In that
view, the petition filed by Respondents 1 to 3
for quashing the criminal proceeding was
allowed.
8. It is no more res integra that
exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC
to quash a criminal proceeding is only
when an allegation made in the FIR or
the charge-sheet constitutes the
ingredients of the offence/offences
alleged. Interference by the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the
abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It
is settled law that the evidence produced
by the accused in his defence cannot be
looked into by the court, except in very
exceptional circumstances, at the initial
stage of the criminal proceedings. It is
trite law that the High Court cannot
embark upon the appreciation of
evidence while considering the petition
filed under Section 482 CrPC for
quashing criminal proceedings. It is
clear from the law laid down by this
Court that if a prima facie case is made
out disclosing the ingredients of the
offence alleged against the accused, the
Court cannot quash a criminal
proceeding."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Insofar as judgments relied on by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner in the cases of
BHAGWANT SINGH and SADHU SINGH (supra) to
contend that entries in the general diary should be
made with all promptness and if there is fabrication it
would lead to a conclusion that trial was not in
accordance with law, were cases where the Apex Court
was examining orders of conviction that were passed
against the petitioners therein and not in cases where
the jurisdiction was exercised under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings on the ground that
entries in the general diary did not inspire confidence in
the Court. That stage is yet to come about in the case
at hand and it is a matter of trial and all the defenses
that the petitioner wants to put up in these proceedings
would always be available to the petitioner to put up in
the trial and come out clean.
22. In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of
the Apex Court, I do not find any warrant to interfere
with the present proceedings against the petitioner. The
Criminal Petition lacks merit and is accordingly,
dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2018
and I.A.No.1/2020 do not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, stand disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
