Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Abdul Rahaman Khan vs The State By Apmc Yard Ps
2023 Latest Caselaw 6205 Kant

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6205 Kant
Judgement Date : 31 August, 2023

Karnataka High Court
Abdul Rahaman Khan vs The State By Apmc Yard Ps on 31 August, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
                                                   -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC-D:9828
                                                           CRL.P No. 101916 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                                BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                                CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101916 OF 2023

                      BETWEEN:

                      ABDUL RAHAMAN KHAN,
                      AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. SELF EMPLOYED,
                      R/O. #3255/M-25, PULIKESHI ROAD,
                      MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE-570015.
                                                                       ... PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. A.D. NADAF, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE BY APMC YARD PS.,
                           BELAGAVI, R/BY HIGH COURT, GOVT PLEADER,
                           OFFICE AT DHARWAD HIGH COURT,
                           DHARWAD-580011.

         2.                RAMESH KUMAR S/O VASANTA KUMAR,
VISHAL                     AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. SELF EMPLOYED,
NINGAPPA                   R/O PLOT NO 10, KRISHI NAGAR,
                           NEAR RING ROAD, IBRAHIMPUR,
PATTIHAL                   VIJAYPUR-586109.
                                                                     ... RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by   (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL                    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
Date: 2023.09.02      SEEKING TO QUASH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS
13:25:18 +0530        INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 14 IN CRIME
                      NO. 59/2022, APMC YARD P.S. BELAGAVI PENDING ON THE FILE OF
                      PRINCIPAL   DISTRICT   AND    SESSIONS   JUDGE,   BELAGAVI,
                      REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC.
                      23 OF THE BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT
                      2019 AND U/SEC. 506, 120B, 149, 406 420 OF IPC AMD AMONGST
                      THE OTHER GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THE
                      GROUNDS RELIED IN THE AVERNMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS
                      PART OF THIS PETITION.
                                     -2-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC-D:9828
                                            CRL.P No. 101916 of 2023




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

                                  ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court calls in question the

proceedings in Crime.No.59/2022 of APMC Yard Police station

pending on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge,

Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 120B,

149, 406, 420 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that issue in the lis stands answered by the Co-ordinate

Bench in Crl.P.No.102888/2022, dated 19.10.2022. The Co-

ordinate Bench has held as follows:

ORDER

The FIR is registered in Crime No.257/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 of IPC and Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "Act" for short) alleging that accused Nos.1 and 4 induced the people to deposit money stating that the amount invested will be doubled and the said amount which is invested by the public have been utilized for own purpose and for other purposes and during the course of investigation, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, as they were collecting the money

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9828 CRL.P No. 101916 of 2023

from the public as agents of accused No.1. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Section 27 of the Act specifies that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under that section except upon a complaint made by the Regulator. He further submits that the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act is one without authority of law.

3. The learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the petitioners having collected money illegally from the people, committed the aforesaid offences and the Police have registered the FIR and the same does not warrant any interference.

4. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Section 7 of the Act, specifies that appropriate government shall, by notification, appoint one or more officers not below the rank of Secretary to that government, as the competent authority for the purpose of this Act. Section 8 specifies that the appropriate government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute one or more Courts known as the Designated Courts for such area or areas to deal with the matters to which the provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act applies. Section 27 of the Act specifies that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under that section except upon a complaint made by the Regulator.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9828 CRL.P No. 101916 of 2023

6. A conjoint reading of this provision indicates that the government shall first appoint a Regulator and thereafter designate a Court to deal with the matters to which the provisions of this Act apply and the Designated Court can take cognizance only on a complaint in writing made by the Regulator.

7. In the instant case, the Regulator has not filed a complaint before the Designated Court so as to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act. However, the Police have registered the FIR for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the registration of the FIR for the aforesaid offences is one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER Writ Petition is allowed.

The impugned FIR in Crime No.257/2021 filed by the Chikkodi Police Station insofar it relates to accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed.

3. Learned HCGP on perusal of the judgment would

accept that the issue has been answered by the Co-ordinate

Bench.

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Writ petition is allowed.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9828 CRL.P No. 101916 of 2023

ii) The impugned proceedings in

Crime.No.59/2022 of APMC Yard Police station

pending on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Belagavi qua the petitioner stands quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

vb ct:bck

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter