Karnataka High Court
Shanmukhappa Singanal vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 October, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100124 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SHANMUKHAPPA SINGANAL S/O VENKAPPA SINGANAL,
AGED ABOUT: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: C.B.S. NAGAR, BANNIGIDADA CAMP,
GOURISHANKAR TRADERS, SHIVA TALKIES ROAD,
GANGAVATHI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.
2. SURESH S/O SHANMUKHAPPA SINGANAL,
AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: C.B.S. NAGAR, BANNIGIDADA CAMP,
GOURISHANKAR TRADERS, SHIVA TALKIES ROAD,
GANGAVATHI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.
3. MAHESH S/O SHANMUKHAPPA SINGANAL,
AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: C.B.S. NAGAR, BANNIGIDADA CAMP,
GOURISHANKAR TRADERS, SHIVA TALKIES ROAD,
GANGAVATHI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.
... PETITIONERS
VIJAYALAKSHMI (BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)
M KANKUPPI
Digitally signed by
AND:
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
KANKUPPI
Date: 2023.11.04
11:34:09 +0530 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY P.S.I. KOPPAL TOWN P.S.,
R/BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
2. VEERABASAPPA S/O VEERANNA NAREGAL,
AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS,
R/O: ILAKAL, NOW RESIDING AT
B.T.PATIL NAGAR, KOPPAL,
TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADV FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.07.2015
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND SET ASIDE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN CRIME NO. 174 OF 2015 (OLD CRIME NO. 133 OF 2015) AND FIR
NO.536 OF 2015 OF GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE STATION FOR AN
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
PROHIBITION OF CHARGING EXORBITANT INTEREST ACT 2004 AND
UNDER SECTION 420, 504 AND 506 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE
OF COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GANGAVATHI, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition came to be allowed by common order
dated 22.06.2017 passed in Criminal Petition
No.101569/2016 C/w CRL.P.NOS.100759/2016,
100124/2017, 101566/2016, 100003/2017, 100005/2017,
100004/2017, 101491/2015, 101402/2016, 100884/2016,
100883/2016, 100882/2016, 101368/2016, 101452/2016,
101242/2016, 100718/2016, 100793/2016, 101752/2015,
100624/2016.
2. Respondent No.2 aggrieved by the said order
dated 22.06.2017 filed Criminal Appeal No.506/2018
(arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No.959/2018) before the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has remitted
back the matter by making following observations;
"7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondents also admits that the High Court has not
gone into the merits of the case and disposed of all the
matters in a batch. In view of the said statement,
without going into the merits of the case, we set-aside
the order passed by the High Court and remand the
matter back to the High Court of Karnataka to consider
the same on its merits and dispose of the same in
accordance with law."
3. In view of the above order of Hon'ble Apex
Court, the matter is restored for consideration. Thereafter,
Hon'ble Apex Court has disposed of the Criminal Appeals
preferred by the State of Karnataka by common order
dated 28.02.2023. The said common order passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court is extracted as under;
"Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. V.N. Ragupathy and Mr. Vishal Banshal,
learned counsel for the appellant-State of Karnataka.
The respondents in these cases are represented by Mr.
Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
3. The challenge here is to the common judgment
dated 22.06.2017 whereby the learned single Judge of
the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court
entertained the petition filed by the accused under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, the "Code") and quashed the respective criminal
proceedings where the respondents were arrayed as
accused and some of whom were also arrested.
4. The police proceeded against the accused under
the provisions of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961
(for short, the "1961 Act"), the Karnataka Prohibition of
Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 (for short, the
"2004 Act") together with Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
5. The details of the crime numbers, offences and the
criminal cases as noted by the High Court in paragraph 2
of the impugned judgment are extracted below:
Sl. Criminal Crime No. and Offences C.C. number
No. Petition No. Police Station (Sections) and the Court
1 101569 of 63/2015 37, 38, 39 of 897/2015
2016 Teradal P.S. 1961 Act, 3 Civil Judge &
and 4 of 2004 JMFC,
Act, and 420 of Banahatti.
IPC
2 100759 of 122/2015 5, 37, 38 & 39 351/2016
2016 Banahatti of 1961 Act, 3 Civil Judge &
P.S. and 4 of 2004 Act JMFC,
and 420 of IPC Banahatti.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
3 100124 of 174/2015 4 of 2004 Act and
2017 Gangavathi 420, 504 &
Town P.S. 506 of IPC
4 101566 of 161/2015 4 of 2004 Act
2016 Gangavathi and 420, 506
Town P.S. r/w 34 of IPC
5 100003 of 141/2015 3, 4 & 28 of
2017 Gangavathi 1961 Act, 4 of
Town P.S. 2004 Act.
6 100005 of 144/2015 3, 4 & 28 of
2017 Gangavathi 1961 Act, 4 of
Town P.S. 2004 Act.
7 100004 of 140/2015 3, 4 & 28 of
2017 Gangavathi 1961 Act, 4 of
Town P.S. 2004 Act.
8 101491 of 223/2015 4 of 2004 Act and
2015 Gangavathi 504 of IPC
Rural P.S.
9 101402 of 153/2015 4 of 2004 Act
2016 Gangavathi and 504 and
Town P.S. 506 of IPC
10 100884 of 142/2015 3, 4 & 28 of
2016 Gangavathi 1961 Act and 4
Town P.S. of 2004 Act
11 100883 of 146/2015 3, 4 & 28 of
2016 Gangavathi 1961 Act and 4
Town P.S. of 2004 Act
12 100882 of 77/2015 4 of 2004 Act,
2016 Gangavathi 506, 504 and
Town P.S. 379 of IPC
13 101368 of 64/2015 37, 38 & 39 of 902/2015
2016 Terdal P.S. 1961 Act, 3 & Civil Judge &
4 of 2004 Act JMFC,
and 420 of IPC Banahatti
14 101452 of 105/2015 3, 4, 37, 38 &
2016 Sirigeri P.S. 39 of 1961
Act, 3, 4 and
28 of 2004 Act
and 420 of IPC
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
15 101242 of 104/2015 3, 4, 37, 38 &
2016 Sirigeri P.S. 39 of 1961
Act, 3, 4 and
28 of 2004 Act
and 420 of IPC
16 100718 of 130/2016 of 39 of 1961 Act
2016 Hospet Town and 3, 4 of
P.S. 2004 Act
17 100793 of 145/2015 of 38 & 39 of 1232/2015 on
2016 Brucepet P.S. 1961 Act, 3, 4 the file of
of 2004 Act Addl. Civil
and 420 of IPC Judge (Jr.
Dn.) & JMFC,
Ballari.
18 101752 of 99/2015 5, 37, 38 & 39
2015 Terdal P.S. of 1961 Act
and 420,
506(2), 342 &
323 of IPC
19 100624 of 83/2015 38 & 39 of
2016 Yalaburga 1961 Act, 3, 4
P.S. of 2004 Act
and 420 of IPC
6. The related police action commenced in the
connected Criminal Appeal @ SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 5382
OF 2018 soon after registration of the FIR No. 36 of 2015
on 07.08.2015. But in the cases shown in the above
chart, the police sprang into action without registering any
FIR, conducted raids, carried out investigation and arrest
and only thereafter, the FIRs were registered.
7. The importance of registering FIR was highlighted
by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Lalita Kumari v.
Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1,
where the Bench observed that registration of an FIR
under Section 154 of the Code is the procedure
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
established by law and the same is in conformity with
Article 21 of the Constitution. The following pertinent
observation is extracted from Lalita Kumari (supra):
"86. Therefore, conducting an investigation into an
offence after registration of FIR under Section 154
of the Code is the "procedure established by law"
and, thus, is in conformity with Article 21 of the
Constitution. Accordingly, the right of the accused
under Article 21 of the Constitution is protected if
the FIR is registered first and then the investigation
is conducted in accordance with the provisions of
law."
8. The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra)
then went on to observe the following:
"96. The underpinnings of compulsory registration
of FIR is not only to ensure transparency in the
criminal justice-delivery system but also to ensure
"judicial oversight". Section 157(1) deploys the
word "forthwith". Thus, any information received
under Section 154(1) or otherwise has to be duly
informed in the form of a report to the Magistrate.
Thus, the commission of a cognizable offence is not
only brought to the knowledge of the investigating
agency but also to the subordinate judiciary.
xx xx xx
104. Burking of crime leads to dilution of the
rule of law in the short run; and also has a very
negative impact on the rule of law in the long run
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
since people stop having respect for the rule of law.
Thus, non-registration of such a large number of
FIRs leads to a definite lawlessness in the society.
105. Therefore, reading Section 154 in any
other form would not only be detrimental to the
scheme of the Code but also to the society as a
whole. It is thus seen that this Court has repeatedly
held in various decided cases that registration of
FIR is mandatory if the information given to the
police under Section 154 of the Code discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence."
9. While Section 154 of the Code postulates that FIRs
are compulsorily registerable on receipt of information of
all cognizable offences, preliminary inquiry is envisaged
for certain exigencies and those are pointed out by way of
exception in the following paragraphs of Lalita Kumari
(supra):
"115. Although, we, in unequivocal terms, hold that
Section 154 of the Code postulates the mandatory
registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable
offences, yet, there may be instances where
preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the
change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the
passage of time. One such instance is in the case of
allegations relating to medical negligence on the
part of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to
prosecute a medical professional only on the basis
of the allegations in the complaint.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
xx xx xx
117. In the context of offences relating to
corruption, this Court in P. Sirajuddin v. State of
Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 expressed the need for a
preliminary inquriy before proceeding against public
servants.
118. Similarly, in CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh,
(2003) 6 SCC 175, this Court has validated a
preliminary inquiry prior to registering an FIR only
on the ground that at the time the first information
is received, the same does not disclose a cognizable
offence."
10. As would appear from above, when information
received by the police disclosed the commission of a
cognizable offence, in all such situation, registration of FIR
is mandatory. The only exception is when the information
does not disclose any cognizable offence and an FIR may
not be registered immediately and the police can conduct
a sort of police verification or make enquiry for the limited
purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable
offence has been committed.
11. In the instant cases, the information received by
the police definitely disclosed that cognizable offence is
committed under the IPC and also under the 1961 Act and
2004 Act. In a situation where registration of an FIR is
deferred, the police at least should have registered the
information in the General Diary maintained in the police
station.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
12. In these matters, the action of the police against
the accused is under Section 15 of the 1961 Act as also
under Section 5 of the 2004 Act and here the police,
without even registering the FIR after receipt of
information, entered the premises of the respondents,
seized documents and also arrested some of them. The
police in their haste disregarded the cardinal principle of
registering an FIR before proceeding to take action on the
basis of information. Noticing the above, as also the
provisions of Section 15 of the 1961 Act and Section 5 of
the 2004 Act, the High Court rightly recorded that the
relevant procedure contemplated by the statute were
disregarded by the police and on that basis, bearing in
mind that the police initiated action without registering
the FIR, relief was granted by quashing the criminal
proceedings.
13. The basis on which the High Court granted relief
would not in our opinion justify any interference by this
Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the
Constitution. Accordingly, both State appeals stand
dismissed.
14. While deciding these appeals, we have not
examined the applicability of the provisions of 1961 Act or
the 2004 Act or the IPC to the persons against whom,
FIRs are registered under the said Acts.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of."
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
4. The present petition i.e., Criminal Petition
No.100124/2017 is at Sl.No.3 of the list of cases listed in
paragraph No.5 of the above order. The merits of the
present case are also considered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the common judgment dated 28.02.2023. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the
State of Karnataka confirming the common order dated
22.06.2017 passed by this Court.
5. Therefore, in view of the above, there is no
necessity of considering the petition as per remand order
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court dated 06.04.2018 in
Criminal Appeal No.506/2018 (arising out of S.L.P (Crl)
No.959/2018).
6. In view of the above, the petition stands
disposed of in terms of common order passed by this
Court dated 22.06.2017 and common order dated
28.02.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal
Appeal Nos....../2023 (arising out of SLP (Criminal)
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12750
CRL.P No. 100124 of 2017
Nos.5363-5381/2018) with Criminal Appeal No..../2023
(arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.6380/2018).
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM
CT:BCK
