Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nagaraj V vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4488
CRL.P No. 1458 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1458 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NAGARAJ V
S/O. VADIVELU @ VARADAPPA @ VARADARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT U-7, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA,
SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.
2. SRI. GANDHI. N
S/O. V. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT U-7, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA,
SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.
Digitally
signed by
3. SRI. SHASTRI. N
CHAITHRA A
S/O. V. NAGARAJ,
Location:
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
HIGH COURT
OF R/AT U-7, 2ND CROSS,
KARNATAKA 2ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA,
SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KAMALUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4488
CRL.P No. 1458 of 2020
THROUGH KENGERI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. CHANDRAKUMAR
S/O. LATE R. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1019/A, 2ND MAIN,
SERVICE ROAD, VIJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1302/2017 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT POLICE ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
(CCH.NO.60) NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXIV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY CCH-NO.65 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 397 OF IPC
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of
the proceedings pending in S.C.No.1302/2017 on the file
of the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Section 397 of
IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:4488
2. The case of the prosecution is that respondent
No.2 who is a real estate consultant had collected Rs.2.5
crores of Rs.500 and Rs.1000/- demonetized currency
notes from his friends and relatives. While he was
planning to deposit the same in the bank, he got a call
from accused No.2-Byappa who offered him to exchange
the demonetized currency notes for new valid notes at
20% commission and asked him to come near National
Public School, Kengeri Sattellite Town, Bengaluru. As
agreed, respondent No.2 reached the spot, accused Nos.1
to 3 threatened the complainant at gun point and forcibly
committed robbery. The further case of the prosecution is
that accused were armed with deadly weapons and by
terrorizing respondent No.2-complainant, the accused
have managed to commit dacoity.
3. Pursuant to registration of crime in
FIR.No.210/2017, the Investigating Officer has conducted
investigation and has laid a charge sheet. Petitioners are
seeking quashing of the proceedings.
NC: 2024:KHC:4488
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners placing
reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma .vs. Union of India1
would point out that on account demonetization, currency
notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- were not amenable to
legal tender and therefore, even if the allegations made in
the complaint are accepted in entirety, no offence is made
out and therefore, the present petition is filed seeking
quashing of the proceedings.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned HCGP. Perused the records.
6. The case of the prosecution is that respondents
under the garb of exchanging demonetized currency notes
into valid notes have forcibly taken huge monies and the
crime is registered. The investigating Officer after due
investigation has laid a charge sheet. The charge sheet
materials clearly reveal that serious allegations are
attributed against the petitioners of committing dacoity
AIR Online 2023 SC 8
NC: 2024:KHC:4488
and use of deadly weapons to cause grievous hurt. The
material on record also indicates that there are allegations
that accused have given a life threat. If the allegations in
the complaint are accepted and the charge sheet materials
are looked into, this Court is not inclined to grant any
indulgence to the petitioner. Bearing in mind the gravity
of the offences indicated in the complaint and the charge
sheet, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to
quash the proceedings by exercising inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. Based on charge sheet materials, the
prosecution is entitled to bring home the guilt of the
petitioners and the petitioners have an opportunity to
contest and defend the trial.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the
Court below is directed to expedite the hearing.
Sd/-
JUDGE
