Karnataka High Court

Smt Priyanka Angur vs State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2024

                                        -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:5521
                                                  CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                      BEFORE
            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                      CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4992 OF 2019
            BETWEEN:

            1.    SMT. PRIYANKA ANGUR
                  W/O DR. MADHUKAR G ANGUR,
                  AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
                  R/AT NO. 1128, 21ST A CROSS,
                  14TH MAIN, 3RD SECTOR,
                  HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560102

            2.    DR. MADHUKAR G ANGUR
                  S/O. SRI. GUDAPPA ANGUR,
                  AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                  R/AT NO. 1128, 21ST A CROSS,
                  14TH MAIN, 3RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT,
                  BANGALORE 560102
Digitally
signed by   3.    SRI. RAVI KUMAR
ALBHAGYA          S/O. SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
Location:         AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
HIGH
                  R/AT NO. 22, PATHRE ABBAIAH ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA         3RD CROSS, KR PURAM,
                  BENGALURU 560036
                                                          ...PETITIONERS
            (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                  BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                             -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:5521
                                    CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019




     SHANKARAPURA POLICE STATION,
     BENGALURU,
     REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     HIGH COURT BUILDING,
     VIDHANA VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU 560001

2.  SRI. DHANRAJ BABU G
    AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
    S/O. SRI. GANESH P,
    R/AT NO. 25/1, NO. 14, SHANKAR PARK ROAD,
    SHANKARAPURAM,
    BENGALURU 560 004
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. VIDYASHREE NAYAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


      THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE

FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED

13.04.2018 IN C.C.NO.9349/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF

THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

BENGALURU CITY FOR OFFENCE WHICH ARE MADE PENAL

U/S.504,506,120-B   R/W   SEC.34   OF   IPC,   AGAINST   THE

PETITIONERS.


      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:5521
                                      CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019




                          ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3

seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.9349/2018

for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506,

120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Based on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a

crime was registered in Crime No.52/2017 against the

petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 504,

506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC. The allegation in

the complaint is that petitioner No.2 borrowed

Rs.4,75,00,000/- from the complainant and by way of

security to the said loan issued a cheque in favour of the

complainant. It is further alleged that respondent No.2-

complainant presented the cheque to his banker, the

cheque came to be dishonoured for insufficiency of funds

and respondent No.2 got issued a legal notice to petitioner

No.2 through his Advocate. The respondent No.2 alleged

that petitioner No.2, on receipt of legal notice, has sent

NC: 2024:KHC:5521

three of his henchmen and threatened the complainant to

return the alleged cheque and settle the dispute.

3. The respondent No.1-Investigating Officer has

investigated the matter and has laid charge sheet for the

offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120(B) read

with Section 34 of IPC. Upon receipt of final report under

Section 173(2), the Magistrate has taken cognizance of

the offence and has directed for registration of case and

consequently process is issued against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating

the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue

and contend that learned Magistrate has not applied his

mind while taking cognizance based on charge sheet.

Referring to the offence indicated in the charge sheet laid

by the Investigating Officer, he would contend that the

complaint lodged by respondent No.2-complainant

discloses commission of offence of cheating and therefore,

Investigating Officer could not have investigated into non-

cognizable offence without seeking prior permission from

NC: 2024:KHC:5521

the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, he would contend

that the Investigating Officer in the first place had no

power to investigate and this aspect is not examined by

the Magistrate while taking cognizance of the charge sheet

materials. The second limb of arguments is that even if

the entire charge sheet materials are accepted in entirety,

having regard to the fact that charge sheet is laid for non-

cognizable offences, there are no materials which would

compel the learned Magistrate to proceed against the

petitioners. He would contend that even if charge sheet

materials are looked into, the requisite ingredients of

Sections 504 and 506 are found lacking in the final report

laid by the respondent No.1-Investigating Officer. On

these set of grounds, the proceedings pending in

C.C.No.9349/2018 is questioned and accordingly,

quashing is sought.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and

learned HCGP. Perused the material on record.

NC: 2024:KHC:5521

6. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2-

complainant has filed a private complaint for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act against petitioner

No.2. Counsel on record has not disputed that private

complaint is filed prior to registration of crime. If these

significant details are taken into consideration, then I am

of the view that the proceedings pending in

C.C.No.9349/2018 are liable to be quashed on two counts.

Firstly, cognizance taken by the Magistrate prima facie is

found to be patently erroneous. Learned Magistrate has

not examined as to whether Investigating Officer could

have enquired into the crime for the offences punishable

under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. Though complainant

while registering crime had alleged cheating and crime

was registered for the offence punishable under Section

420, the Investigating Officer while submitting the final

report has laid charge sheet for the offence punishable

under Sections 504, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of

IPC. Admittedly, these offences are non-cognizable and

therefore, the entire investigation done by the respondent

NC: 2024:KHC:5521

No.1 stands vitiated and therefore, learned Magistrate

without examining these significant details has

mechanically taken cognizance and therefore, the order

taking cognizance also suffers from serious infirmities.

7. If respondent No.2 has filed private complaint

under Section 200 for the offence punishable under

Section 138, the allegation in the complaint that

petitioners have threatened also lacks credible support

from the charge sheet materials. Even if the charge sheet

materials are accepted, this Court is more than satisfied

that no case is made out against the petitioners. There is

a bleak chance of conviction in the case on hand having

regard to the charge sheet materials. Therefore, even on

this count, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

8. Though learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2-complainant placing reliance on

judgment rendered by the cognate Bench in an unreported

judgment tried to persuade this Court to set aside the

order taking cognizance and permit the learned Magistrate

NC: 2024:KHC:5521

to proceed afresh, I am not inclined to accede to the said

contention in the light of findings recorded supra. To do

substantial justice and to prevent abuse of process, I am

of the view that this is a fit case where this Court has to

exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If

petitioner No.2 is already convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 138, respondent No.2 has to

pursue the remedy based on conviction order that is

already passed against petitioner No.2. The respondent

No.2-complainant could not have launched simultaneous

criminal case against petitioner No.2 and other petitioners

having consciously filed private complaint under Section

200 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.

Act.

9. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is allowed;

(ii) The proceedings pending in C.C.No.9349/2018 pending on the file of the

NC: 2024:KHC:5521

XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC insofar it relates to the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed;