Karnataka High Court
Siddarth @ Nagappa vs State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1175 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.SIDDARTH @ NAGAPPA,
S/O RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 364,
3RD CROSS,
PILLANNA GARDEN
TANNY ROAD,
BENGALURU-84.
2. SRI. SUBRAMANI,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD CROSS,
AMARAVATHI LAYOUT,
PANGARPET,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
3. SRI. SURESH,
S/O SEENAPPA ,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 292,
THAYAGARAJ LAYOUT,
HOSAKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
4. SRI. SURESH,
S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 68, 7TH CROSS,
NANDISHRE KALYANA MANTAP,
HOSAKOTE.
5. SRI. RAMESH,
S/O CHIKKANARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 123,
-2-
M.V. EXTENSION,
HOSAKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
6. SRI. RAGHU,
S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 123,M.V. EXTENSION,
HOSAKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VINOD REDDY.V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BAGALUR P.S,
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.J ROHITH.,HCGP )
-----
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.3923/2016 (CR.NO.115/2016) OF BAGALUR POLICE
STATION, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
DEVANAHALLI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 420, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Both counsels appearing for the petitioners and
learned HCGP for respondent-State submits that the
issue in this matter is covered by the judgment rendered
in Crl.P.No.4338/2018 disposed of on 09.04.2019 against
other accused, wherein this Court at paras 7, 8 and 9 has
held as under:-
7. In the light of rival contentions
raised and in the background of charge
sheet material, only question that would
arise for consideration is:
"Whether this Court is required to
exercise inherent jurisdiction to
quash the charge sheet against
petitioners or not?"
The answer will have to be necessarily in
the affirmative in the instant case for
reasons indicated herein below:
At the outset, it requires to be noticed
that while considering a prayer or plea for
quashing of proceedings, this Court will
have to examine as to whether prima facie
the offence alleged against petitioners is
made out and even if the said material were
to remain uncontraverted, said proceedings
would not end in conviction or not? If
allegations set out in the complaint do not
constitute any offence alleged of which
cognizance has been taken, continuation of
such proceedings would definitely be
onerous and continuation of it would not be
in the interest of justice. However, it is not
necessary that a meticulous analysis of
charge sheet material should be done before
trial to find out whether the case would end
in conviction or not. If it appears on a
meaningful reading of complaint and
consideration of allegations therein, in the
light of statement of witnesses recorded by
Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation that offence alleged is made
out, then it would not be necessary to
quash the proceedings. Likewise, defence
that may be available, or facts/aspects
which when established during trial, may
lead to acquittal, are not grounds for
quashing of the proceedings even before
recording of the evidence. At this stage,
only question relevant as observed
hereinabove is whether averments made in
the complaint spell out ingredients of
criminal offence or not. It is in this
background when complaint as well as
charge sheet material is examined, it would
clearly indicate that neither the offence
under Section 420 of IPC or Section 511 of
IPC is attracted, inasmuch as, there is no
specific allegation made in the complaint
about petitioners having induced any
particular third party to part with any
property so as to constitute the offence of
cheating. That apart, Section 511 of IPC
which is pressed into service is also not
attracted, inasmuch as, a plain reading of
Section 511 of IPC would indicate that mere
"attempt" to commit an offence would not be
sufficient and "attempt" as the expression
found in Section 511 itself would indicate to
mean the intent combined with an act short
of the theme intended. It may be described
as an endeavour to do an act, carried
beyond mere preparation but short of
execution. Three necessary ingredients of
the crime being; (a) intention (b) preparation
and (c) attempt to commit the offence.
8. In the instant case, as could be
seen from complaint as well as charge sheet
material namely, statement of witnesses
which would disclose that accused persons
were only discussing amongst themselves
that brass vessel can be shown to public to
be a vessel which would earn crores of
rupees and with this intent, they were
attempting to cheat public without any
further act, would not attract Section 511 of
IPC. However mere discussion, though
would express the intent it would not
suffice, since other two ingredients of
Section 511 is not found as per the
allegations made against them in the charge
sheet.
9. In that view of the matter, keeping
in mind the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992
Supp.(1) SCC 335 that even if the
allegations made in the complaint were to
remain unrebutted or uncontraverted, it
would definitely not lead to conviction of
accused and as such continuation of
proceedings against petitioners would
definitely be an abuse of process of law and
also waste of precious judicial time, such
proceedings requires to be quashed by
exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
In the light of the issue standing covered by the
judgment referred supra, the petition is allowed.
Proceedings against the petitioners in
C.C.No.3923/2016 are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*mn/-
