Karnataka High Court
Shri. Mahantesh Parit vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102240/2018
BETWEEN
1. SHRI. MAHANTESH PARIT S/O.SHANKAR PARIT,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER AXIS BANK,
NOW PROMOTED AS DY.VICE PRESIDENT,
R/AT: AXIS BANK, TILAKAWADI, BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST.BELAGAVI, NOW R/O. AXIS BANK,
ANANDRAO CIRCLE, OPP. VRL OFFICE, BENGALURU.
2. SHRI ANILKUMAR PANDURANG KAUJALAGI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER AXIS BANK,
R/O: RATNA PLAZA, CTS NO.10593,
NOW AGT KOLHAPUR CIRCLE, BELAGAVI,
TQ AND DIST-BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHAFIAHMED B.SHAIKH, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/P BY TILAKAWADI POLICE STATION,
TQ. AND DIST-BELAGAVI,
R/P THROUGH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
2
Crl.P.102240/18
2. SHRI AMAR S/O MADHUKAR NALAVADE,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NO.G-2, AASHRAYA VIHAR,
R.N. TAGORE ROAD, R.C. NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590006.
3. MR.JAIPRAKASH S/O NARAYAN NALAVADE,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MANVAD GALLI, SANKESHWAR,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI SHARAD V.MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.2)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3-SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED
UNDER C.C.NO.516/2017 BY THE TILAKAWADI POLICE
STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC IV-COURT,
BELAGAVI, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 &
3 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 403, 406, 409, 418, 420 R/W
SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
Crl.P.102240/18
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in Criminal Case No.516/2017
pending before the IV JMFC Court, Belagavi for the
offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 418 and
420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri Shafiahmed B.Shaikh,
Appearing for the petitioners, Sri Praveen Uppar, learned
HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Sharad
V.Magadum, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition
as borne out from the pleadings are as follows :
The complainant's family had entered into certain sale
agreements in the year 1992 and 2005 in respect of the
lands in Sy.Nos.275/1 and 275/2A in all measuring 09
acres. Before the agreements could fructify into sale deeds
acquisition proceedings were initiated by the competent
Crl.P.102240/18
authorities seeking acquire the land that was the subject
matter of the aforesaid agreements.
4. The family members of the Yadav family, who were
in possession of the agricultural lands, executed a power of
attorney in favour of the 1st accused, who is not before the
Court, in regard to representation in acquisition
proceedings before the various courts and authorities.
5. An enhanced compensation amount of
Rs.1,06,69,171/- was ordered to be granted to the land
owners in terms of an order passed by this Court in
MFA.No.23657/2012 and an another amount of
Rs.68,67,158/- in MFA.No.23656/2012. Both these orders
were passed in the month of August-2013. In order to
receive the compensation amount, a joint savings bank
account was opened by the complainant and the 1st
accused and cheques were deposited in the said account
opened at Axis Bank, Tilakwadi Branch, Belagavi.
6. The compensation amount that was deposited into
the joint account was later transferred to another account
Crl.P.102240/18
without the consent or the signature of one of the account
holders-the complainant, by the handiwork of the 1st
accused. When the complainant comes to know about the
said transaction registers a complaint invoking Section 200
of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 403,
406, 409, 418 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The
matter is referred to the investigation by the learned
Magistrate and the investigation conducted led to filing of
the charge sheet against all the accused including the
petitioners herein for the offences punishable under
Sections 403, 406, 409, 418 and 420 of IPC. It is at that
juncture the petitioners knock the doors of this Court in the
subject petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that the petitioners are no way concerned to
the private transactions of the family. It is the emphatic
submission that they were not even working in the branch
when another account was opened and amount was
transferred from the joint account to the newly opened
Crl.P.102240/18
savings bank account of the 1st accused. He would submit
that there cannot be an offence of cheating or criminal
breach of trust as is alleged against the petitioners.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing
for the complainant while taking this Court through the
documents and also the charge sheet filed by the Police
submits that the petitioners were infact working in the
branch at the time when the account was opened and have
connived with the 1st accused for transfer of huge
compensation amount which would amount to criminal
breach of trust and cheating as is alleged.
9. The learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the
learned counsel appearing for the complainant and would
submit that it is a matter of trial that the petitioners have
to come out cleaned.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective counsel and have
perused the material on record.
Crl.P.102240/18
11. The afore narrated facts, dates and events of the
acquisition proceedings and the possession of the lands or
the execution of the agreements not being in dispute are
not reiterated. The amount of Rs.1,06,69,171/- and
Rs.68,87,158/- was the compensation determined by this
court in the appeals stated supra. These amounts were
deposited in a joint savings bank account, account holders
of which were the complainant and the 1st accused.
Accused No.1 is a G.P.A. holder from the hands of the
complainant in order to facilitate representation of the
cases of the complainant in various courts.
12. After the amount came into the joint account of
the complainant and the 1st accused, a separate account
was clandestinely opened in a different branch of the Axis
Bank by accused No.1 and the finding in the investigation
is that it was with the connivance of accused Nos.2 and 3-
the petitioners. The petitioners are alleged of divulging of
details, which led to the 1st accused wanting to siphon of
the compensation funds that were lying in the joint
Crl.P.102240/18
account. This action of transfer from the joint account to
the account of the 1st accused was indisputably without
consent of the complainant. It is in that light a complaint
was registered.
13. The allegations against the petitioners who are
officers of the Bank, who do have an active role to play in
opening of the joint account in connivance with the accused
No.1. It is only then the amount was transferred from the
joint account to the savings bank account of the accused
No.1. The working of the petitioners in that branch of the
bank or not is a matter of trial. Prima facie, the ingredients
as found in Sections 405, 415 of the IPC are met in the
complaint itself.
14. The property in the case at hand was the amount
of compensation that was deposited in the joint account
and which has been transferred to a different account of
accused No.1. Therefore prima-facie the allegation of
criminal breach of trust is met. Insofar as the allegation of
cheating as is punishable under Section 420 of IPC, the
Crl.P.102240/18
ingredients of which are found in Section 415 of IPC.
Section 415 of IPC though mandates that there should be
inducement against the victim for a particular action. The
facts in the case at hand would clearly indicate that that
the amount that had to be held in a joint account is let to
be transferred to the different account of accused No.1,
without the active role of the petitioners that could not be
achieved. Therefore, the offence of cheating is prima facie
made out in the complaint.
15. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Sections 482 of Cr.P.C. would not interfere or interject such
proceedings, where the facts, the complaint and charge
sheet clearly point at the role of the petitioners. The view
of mine in this regard is fortified by the judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of M.P. v.
Yogendra Singh Jadon, (2020) 12 SCC 588 and (2020) 4
SCC (Cri) 189 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 111 at page 590. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogendra's (supra) has
held as follows:
Crl.P.102240/18
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
Crl.P.102240/18
to the respondents to take such other action as
may be available to them in accordance with law.
In Rajeev Kourav (supra) 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 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
Crl.P.102240/18
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.
16. In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, this court would not interject the
Crl.P.102240/18
proceedings in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482
of Cr.P.C. as the petitioners have come out clean in a full
fledged trial, as there are serious triable issues. The
petition lacks merits and is dismissed.
17. It is made clear that observations made in the
course of this order are only with regard to consideration of
the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The
trial Court would not be bound by the observations made in
the course of this order. The trial court would
independently consider the case of the petitioners and pass
appropriate orders on its merit.
SD
JUDGE
CKK/VB
