Karnataka High Court
Shri Shashil Namoshi vs State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 23.01.2025
Pronounced on : 07.02.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12704 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9690 OF 2024
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12704 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHASHIL G.NAMOSHI
S/O GANGADHR NAMOSHI
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
OCC: MLC AND PRESIDENT
OF HKE SOCIETY
R/AT SB COLLEGE ROAD
ANAND NAGAR
GB BAHAMANIPURA
GULBARGA - 585 103.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: High 2. SRI BASAVARAJ BHIMALLI
court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, S/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA BHIMALLI
Dharwad
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
OCC: EX-PRESIDENT OF HKE SOCIETY
R/AT H.NO.4-848, SARAB BAZAR
NEAR GANESH MANDIR
MUKTAMPUR, GULBARGA - 585 101.
2
3. DR. MALLIKARJUN BHANDAR
S/O SIDRAMAPPA BANDAR
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
OCC: MEDICAL PROFESSION
R/AT H.NO.1-1166/4
ALWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD
NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE OFFICE
N.E.SHAHI AREA
GULBARGA - 585 102.
4. DR. SAINATH KARNAPPA ANDOLA
S/O KARANAPPA ANDOLA
OCC: MEDICAL PROFESSION
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT H.NO.20907/27A/1A 1B
GULBARGA MATERNITY HOSPITAL
GUBBI COLONY
GULBARGA - 585 105.
5. DR. SHARANABASAPPA R.HARWAL
S/O REVAPPA HARAVALA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
OCC: MEDICAL PROFESSION
R/AT NO.H.NO.1-10/4A
NEAR NAGATHAN HOSPITAL
KHUBA PLOT, GULBARGA - 585 102.
6. C.C.PATIL @ CHANABASAWARAJ
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
OCC: SECRETARY OF HKE SOCIETY
R/AT NO.96/C/3, MSK MILL ROAD
SHANTHI NAGAR, GULBARGA - 585 102.
7. UDAYKUMAR CHINCHOLI
S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA CHINCHOLI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
3
OCC: ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF
HKE SOCIETY
R/AT NO.10-2-140, STATION BAZAR
BEHIND COURT, MAHANTH NAGAR
GULBARGA - 585 102.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI NAGABHUSHANA REDDY K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION BAZAR POLICE STATION
GULBARGA
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . PRADEEP DABSHETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O SANGAPPA DABSHETTY
R/AT H.NO.10-31/E
KALA SANG, VITTALA NAGAR
KALABURGI CITY
KARNATAKA - 585 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B.N., SPL. PP FOR R1;
SRI SHIVAPRASAD M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482/
528 OF BNSS OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST
THE ABOVE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.128/2024 REGISTERED BY THE
STATION BAZAR P.S. KALABURGI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 238,
324(4) R/W 190 OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CJ
(J.D) AND J.M.F.C GULBARGA.
4
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.9690 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI SHASHIL NAMOSHI
S/O GANGADHAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
OCC: PRESIDENT
HKE SOCIETY
RESIDING AT ANAND NAGAR
SB COLLEGE ROAD
KALABURGI - 585 103.
2. SHRI BASAVARAJ
S/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA BHIMALLI
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
OCC: EX-PRESIDENT
HKE SOCIETY
R/AT H.NO.4-848
NEAR GANESH MANDIR
SARAB BAZAR, MUKTAMBUR
KALABURGI - 585 101.
3. DR. MALLIKARJUN @ MALLIKARJUN BHANDAR
S/O SIDRAMAPPA BANDARI
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
OCC: MEDICAL PROFESSION
R/AT H.NO.1-1166/4
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD
KALABURGI - 585 102.
4. DR. SAINATH
S/O KARANAPPA ANDOLA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
R/AT HOUSE NO.2907/27A/1A
GUBBI COLONY
KALABURGI - 585 105.
5
5. DR. SHARANABASAPPA
@ SHARANABASAPPA R.HARWAL
S/O REVAPPA HARAVALA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AND
PRESENT COUNCIL MEMBER
HKE SOCIETY
R/AT H.NO.1-10/4A
NEAR NAGATHAN HOSPITAL
KHUBA PLOT AREA
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K.NAGABHUSHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CEN POLICE STATION
KALBURGI CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SHRI PRADEEP DABSHETTY
S/O SANGAPPA DABASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: ADVOCATE
R/AT H.NO.10-3/1E KALA SANG
VITTHALA NAGAR, KALABURGI CITY
KARNATAKA - 585 102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B. N., SPL PP FOR R1;
SRI SHIVAPRASAD M.SHANTHANGOUDAR, FOR R2)
6
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482/
528 OF BNSS OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND
COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 0038/2024 DATED 05/08/2024
REGISTERED BY THE R1 CEN POLICE STATION, KALABURGI CITY
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AND JMFC, GULABARGA.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.01.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9690 OF 2024
The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 are knocking at the doors
of this Court, in the subject petition, calling in question registration
of a crime in Crime No.38 of 2024 registered for offences
punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners; Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Shivaprasad M.
Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
7
3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
A complaint comes to be registered by a practicing Advocate
and a Member of the Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society ('the
Society' for short) on 05-08-2024 alleging that during the period
from 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2018, the petitioners herein had held
the office as Members of the Governing Council intermittently and
the petitioners had not remitted stipend amount of the
postgraduate students and also they had not refunded the fee
under the blocked left over seat. They had sold such seats at
higher amounts to other students, secured blank cheques from the
students and drawn the amount for personal purposes. It was
alleged that the Members from 2009 to 2018 had misappropriated
₹65,17,36,800/-. A crime is registered based upon the said
complaint, which becomes a crime in Crime No.38 of 2024 for the
offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The registration of
crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject
petition.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri C.V. Nagesh appearing for
the petitioners would vehemently contend that on 31-03-2024
8
petitioners had registered a crime against the former governing
council Members of the education institution in Crime No.19 of 2024
for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC.
Immediately thereafter, though accused against whom the crime
was registered, to wreak vengeance against these petitioners have
got the crime registered. An added circumstance is that the 1st
petitioner constitutes a three-member Enquiry Committee to
enquire into the very same allegation of stipend and seat allotment
by the said committee. The learned senior counsel further contends
that for an offence to become punishable under Section 420 of the
IPC somebody must be lured into illegal transaction. There is no
complaint registered by any person, but an Advocate through the
accused in Crime No.19 of 2024 has sought to register the subject
crime.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Shivaprasad M.
Shantanagoudar, who has filed the statement of objections would
take this Court through the documents appended to the statement
of objections to contend that there is ample evidence against these
petitioners who have destroyed the files of stipend belonging to the
9
students. He would admit the fact that no student has complained
and would contend that all the records are now destroyed by the
petitioners which also becomes an added offence. Therefore, the
learned counsel would submit that it is a matter of investigation, in
the least, for the petitioners to come out clean. He has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - (2021) 9 SCC
35 to buttress his submission that when there are seriously
disputed questions of fact, this Court should not interfere.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The
complainant is a member of the Society. He has been a member
throughout. The subject complaint comes to be registered on
05-08-2024. The incident complained of ranges between
01-04-2009 and 31-03-2018. It is allegedly at that point in time the
petitioners were members of the Governing Council of the Society.
From 2018 onwards, certain other persons are members of the
10
Governing Council of the Society. It was a seesaw, as once the
petitioners were in power and once the others. Against the
functioning of certain persons who are holding the posts now, the
petitioners register a crime in Crime No.19 of 2024 for offences
punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC. The complaint
so registered against those persons read as follows:
"¢£ÁAPÀ: 31/03/2024
,
.
,
: 1) ! "# $ % #& '( ) *.+ . , -, ./ 2)1 . . 2
3 / 4 3 5#" 3 (6 ) 2.7$. 2. 86 4 + 9 :
, : 3) ; < =#> ? @ AB 2.7$. 2.
86 4+ 9 ? '+C#D #E F= G 4) + H #I @ ?$,
F.7$. #. . H 5#* ) - = -6+ -#J &@ # :
01/01/2018 #( &@ # : 01/03/2024 KL M 282 ?
N .( O P.Q > RS T ;# #U ( ¸ÉÖöÊV#J WX KL M
81,21,60,000/- -3 Y Z A [ RS Z H # \ ] T WX
? 6 =( #= [ RS T WX J> \ ^I Z
8 9 ' 5FN ;_ `1 ( + -#J WX B1 54 6+ -#J =Fa
;b#=+ c Z + -#J 8- ; #d@ 6( (e 5F =.
*****
f g =Fa Ph S( ; ; i> @ #( @ @- ( $ =#>
" X`j k N , ; l 49 S Zm, n> - o @ N & Zm ) ?
11
;#^ , @ SL ? K -cL( ) S, , ॥ 5Wa`q , S
(8- : 9343879179) ( r.
`5; G= tu N .( O v (National Medical Commission)
) - (Post Graduate Medical Education Board (PGMEG) (P.G) ¸ÁßvÀPÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ
ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ« w( xG [ RS T \ ; N .( O + 9 ? `5x x# Zm
¸ÉÖöÊV#J WX 1 y N J 7> " =G> . '( `5+ 2.7$. 2.
+ 9 ? > RS T '( #] 8-( @ S+ c -.45000=00 `5x x# Zm,
1@ S+ c -. 50000=00 & g @ - S+ c - 55000=00 `5x x# Zm
P.Q > RS T ' H # \ ] T WX ? J ] G . f WX A
`5x 3 x# Zm 'BN 4 x# T -8a 9 > RS Z + H #
2.7$. 2. + 9 ? ( 1 H 5#d H # \ ] T WX A
? J ] G . f WX A z. { S 3 5 #|N ;F ( > RS Z A
, )( `1 ( ;_ 6( ^ I ' A ) *.+ . . , - , ./ ) - 2.7$. #. .
;#, } '~ ( ! "# $ % #& + 9 Q 6 F= G '+C#D #E
g (1) 8-( @ S( > RS Z - 37,000-00 (`5x x# Zm) (2)
J@ S( > RS T -. 40,000-00 (`5x x# Zm) (3) g @ S(
[ RS Z -.43,000-00 (`5x x# Zm) WX A H # \ ] T#( ^ Z
g WX B1 5 6 ] G . ;( [ RS Zm -6+ -#J 1 . . 2
3 / 4 3 5#" 3 + 9 ? (6 ) F , H + ( ¸ÉÖöÊV#J WX
F J> \ ^ Z 8 9 ;_ `1 ( + -#J Fa H # \ ] T#( WX A
h + B1 54 6 xG '#] ^ > , 1 . . 2 3 /4
3 5#" 3 ) -, + 9 Q (6 ) F= '( [ RS T f ^
)- xT ( Fa #L 4 IlS 3 5OM 4 IlS E J ]G N )
N .( O Q ) Zm J ]G N #( ) T > RS Z , J-L .El (W c)
, ( + -Zm•xG> r . f xh > RS T 8- ; #d@ J xG i( #J
#& =G> .
P.Q > RS Z H #I \ ] T#( f + Z #J#] ^ I xÁØç J9 >.
(6, # YS#( ZÀéð - KL M 4 x# ZWX )
;#, }^ -c > RS Z¸ÀASÉå `5x > RS #& ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ J¯Áè¤ÃrgÀĪÀ
¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÀít MlÄÖ ºÀt gÀÆ.
> RS T
12
¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÁíO( 1£Éà ªÀµÀð-45,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
&@ # 2£Éà ªÀµÀð-50,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
3£Éà ªÀµÀð-55,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
10-04-2023 1£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 1,80,000/- 1,69,20,000/-
2£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 2,00,000/- 1,88,00,000/-
2,20,000/- 2,06,80,000/-
3£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94
MlÄÖ: 5,64,00,000
8 9 ) T(#] ? 7 , M V#qÀíX A f + Z #J#] xÁØç J9 >.
ªÉÆ(9 ;_ > RS Z¸ÀASÉå «zÁåyðUÀ½AzÀ »A¥ÀqÉzÀ MlÄÖ»A¥ÀqÉzÀºÀt
6 + -#J , M V#qÀíX
ZÉPÀÆä 1£Éà ªÀµÀð-37,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
2£Éà ªÀµÀð- 40,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
7 - P Zm
3£Éà ªÀµÀð-43,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
, M V#qÀíX A
xÁØç 6(
&@ #
13-04-2023 1£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 1,48,000/- 1,39,12,000/-
(r¸ÉA§¬ÄðAzÀ 1,60,000/- 1,50,40,000/-
2£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 1,61,58,000/-
ªÀiÁZÀéðgÉUÀÆ 1,72,000/-
3£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 MlÄÖ 4,51,20,000/-
MlÄÖ 4
wAUÀ¼ÀºÀt)
( €P54 #( ?- b - KL M 3 x# ZWX )
;#, }^ -a > RS Z¸ÀASÉå `5x > RS #& ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ J¯Áè¤ÃrgÀĪÀ
¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÀít MlÄÖ ºÀt gÀÆ.
> RS T M
¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÁíO( 1£Éà ªÀµÀð-45,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
2£Éà ªÀµÀð-50,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
&@ #
3£Éà ªÀµÀð-55,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
13-07-2023 1£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 1,35,000/- 1,26,90,000/-
2,50,000/- 1,41,00,000/-
2£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94
1,65,000/- 1,55,10,000/-
3£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 MlÄÖ:4,23,00,000/-
8 9 ) T(#] ? 7 , M V#qÀíX A f + Z #J#] xÁÖç J9 >.
13
ªÉÆ(9 ;_ > RS Z¸ÀASÉå `5x«zÁåyðUÀ½AzÀ MlÄÖ»A¥ÀqÉzÀºÀt
6 + -#J »A¥ÀqÉzÀ , M V#qÀíX
7 - P Zm 1£Éà ªÀµÀð-37,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
, M V#qÀíX A 2£Éà ªÀµÀð- 40,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
xÁØç 6( 3£Éà ªÀµÀð-43,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
&@ #
15-07-2023 1£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 1,11,000/- 1,04,34,000/-
(K¦æ¯ïEAzÀ 1,20,000/- 1,12,80,000/-
dÆ£ÀégÉUÀÆ MlÄÖ
2£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94
1,29,000/- 1,21,26,000/-
3 wAUÀ¼ÀºÀt) 3£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94
MlÄÖ:3,38,40,000/-
(? 9 .Y#( '+ -M S - KL M 4 x# ZWX )
;#, }^ -a > RS Z¸ÀASÉå `5x > RS #& ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ
¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÀít J¯Áè¤ÃrgÀĪÀ
> RS T M
MlÄÖ ºÀt gÀÆ.
¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÁíO( 1£Éà ªÀµÀð-45,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
2£Éà ªÀµÀð-50,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
&@ #
3£Éà ªÀµÀð-55,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
04-11-2023 1£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 1,80,000/- 1,69,20,000/-
2,00,000/- 1,88,00,000/-
2£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94
2,20,000/- 2,06,80,000/-
3£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 MlÄÖ:5,64,00,000
8 9 ) T(#] ? 7 , M V#qÀíX A f + Z #J#] xÁØç J9 >.
ªÉÆ(9 ;_ > RS Z¸ÀASÉå «zÁåyðUÀ½AzÀ »A¥ÀqÉzÀ MlÄÖ»A¥ÀqÉzÀºÀt
6 + -#J , M V#qÀíX
ZÉPÀÆä 1£Éà ªÀµÀð-37,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
2£Éà ªÀµÀð- 40,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
7 - P Zm
3£Éà ªÀµÀð-43,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
, M V#qÀíX A
xÁØç 6(
&@ #
10-11-2023 1£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 1,48,000/- 1,39,12,000/-
(r¸ÉA§¬ÄðAzÀ 2£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94 1,60,000/- 1,50,40,000/-
ªÀiÁZÀéðgÉUÀÆ 1,72,000/- 1,61,58,000/-
3£Éà ªÀµÀð - 94
MlÄÖ 4 wAUÀ¼À MlÄÖ:4,51,20,000/-
ºÀt)
14
f 8 9 xT (#] &@ # : 01/01/2018 #( &@ # : 01/03/2024
#.7$, #. + 9 ? KL M 282 ? N .~ O P.Q [ RS T ;# #U (
KL M 80% M , .`#J WX _ KL M 81,21,60,000/- + - / -3 Y Z A ;#, }
'~ ,6 ) - '+C#D #E F= G + H #I @ ?$ ) - = k -]
, =Fa ;b#=+ c Z + -#J 8- ; #d@ 6 ] G .
1. ) *.+ . . , - , ./ '~ , 6 F= G '+C#D #E ' -#& ,
> RS ;_ 6 K#> H 5#• ^ I Z A ) ( `1 & i( .
2. > RS Z(\ ] > ) F +c H > 7 ^I Z A H # ;(
+ H #I @ ?$ ' > RS Z n` }x > > -Jy FLM( WX =
6 i( .
3. H #I #( `1 ( WX A ;#, } '( ;b#= Z+ Z + -#6( r
@ -#( 8 ? [ RS Z f +Z #] =G> -AT( > RS Z
#= ; ;9 i( .
SL.NO. STUDENT NAME CANARA BANK IFSC CODE STIFUND SELF
ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT WITHDRAWAL
CREDIT
1 DR.SATISH 13052610000409 SYNB0001305 690000 370000
BASAGI
2 DR.PRIYANKA 110072555414 CNRB0011305 1090000 724000
PATIL
3 DR.PRIYANKA H.Y 110046438647 CNRB0011305 1090000 724000
4 DR.ANUP 110041097790 CNRB0011305 1090000 724000
BALABHEEM
5 DR.YOGESH 0448101064066 CNRB0011305 1090000 724000
GOWDA
6 DR.SHREYA 110041335148 CNRB0011305 1090000 724000
MISHRA
7 DR.ANIL KUMAR K 110045285768 CNRB0011305 1090000 724000
8 DR.PRIYANKA P 110072563128 CNRB0011305 1090000 724000
) *.+ . . , - , ./ '~ ( ! "# $ % #&, #.7$. 2.
86 4 + 9 ? 3 5#" 3 (6 ) 1 . . 2 3 /4 , ॥ ,
#.7$. 2. 8 6 4 + 9 ? '+C#D #E ; < =#> ? @ AB , ॥
) - + H #I @ ?$, 2.7$. #. . H 5#* ) - =
-6+ -#J &@ # : 01/01/2018 #( &@ # : 01/03/2024 KL M 282 ?
N .( O P.Q [ RS T ;# #U ( , .V#‚ WX KL M 81,21,60,000/-
15
-3 Y Z A 8- ; #d@ J n> r "&#( ;( > RS Z H #I
\ ] T ;# #U ( ^ I Z 8 9 F # JN [ RS T#( ;_ `1 ( '
F +c H (#] '`5 { ] Y#( WX B1 5 4 6+ -#J =Fa ;b#=+ c
Z + -#J 8- ; #d@ 6( (e + - 5F + . -Z• #x
=G> .
=Fa z b .
¸À»/-
@- ( $ =#> " X`j k N ,
, || 5Wa`q , S
ªÉÆÃ: 9343879179"
The complaint is registered on 31-03-2024 with all the details. The
allegation is that between 01-01-2018 and 01-03-2024 about 282
students had not received stipend and the students had complained
thereon. The petitioners, on registration of the aforesaid complaint,
constituted a three-member inquiry committee on 21-05-2024 to
go into the stipend and seat allotment irregularities by those
accused persons. The inquiry is underway.
8. Those accused against whom petitioners have registered
crime in Crime No.19 of 2024, appear to have now, through the
2nd respondent/complainant, sought to register the complaint on
16
05-08-2024. The complaint so registered on 05-08-20024, against
the petitioners reads as follows:
¢£ÁAPÀ: 05-08-2024
7
. . ;
: &@ # :01/04/2009 #( 31/03/2018 ' U ) .> 5H ƒ
„ X ;#, } 'U ( F) > 3 j #`q , N .( O
F) > , ' ) 6( (e
+ - 5F ? ; ....
*****
@ „5 `5& ` =#> ;# `j > z /M ; l :50 S, n> - :
@ N & F= G ) *.+ . ;#, } ;(; ,k : # = , :F@ #:10-3/1 9
;# oÀ× 8- . #:9448022231 (r @ 2012 @ , #(
) *.+ . ;#, } ;(; (r) - O †xG J ] G #& ] G @ .
&@ # : 01/04/2009 #( &@ # : 31/03/2018 ' U 1) „5 "„ 4
=#> # ~ 8- „ ) F= G Q '~ , ) *.+ . ;#, } , : .%
+ 9 ? - ‚ ,7 #( , 2) „5 ; ? =#> „ " X3 j ! FT•,
Q '~ ) *.+ . ;#, }, , : F G#`q " F#& WxG
, 3) 1 : F + ? S #1 Q6 2.7$. 2. + 9 ? , :
‡-N -z _ + 9 ? 8- H .4 #:9448041850 4) 1 : , Y@ B +
7#> - , Q6 2.7$. 2. + 9 ? , : %ˆ + 9 -
8-H .4 #:9448881818 5) 1 : " X ;`j 7$. W N Z, Q 6
2.7$. 2. + 9 ? F= G ) C S# +C¤ì # 8# 7`
) *.+ . , -, ./ , : ‰-H 3 E 8- H .4 #:9341732768 -
-6+ -#J &@ # :01/04/2009 #( 31/03/2018 ) .> 5H ƒ @ SL „ X
;#, } 'U ( F) > 3 j #`q , N .( O F) >
, A=+ - =G `( ~ , M.V#‚ WX 3 x;> ) - + Yr ( (Blocked/Left
17
over seat ) '| RS „E Z A + Š#( > RS T WX N `; l 6+ i
> RS T WX N `; l J> ) •‹ WX+ c H '| RS T L A L
6 ' 5FN ; ( r F= G > RS T#( F # JN \ ^I Z 89 ?
6 + -#J WX 1 5 6+ -#J ;b#=+ c n`Œ- + -#J ;
65,17,36,800/- -3 Y ;#, } 8-=G ;b#=+ c Z + -#J 8- ; #d@ 6(
(e + - 5F + . -Z• #x.
=Fa # ,
¸À»/-
„5 `5& ` =#> ;# `j > z /M
n> - :@ N & F= G ) *.+ .
;#, } ;(; , , :F@ #:10-3/1
9 ;# oÀ×
8-. £ÀA: 9448022231"
A perusal at the complaint is indicative of one fact that it relates to
an incident which begins on 01-04-2009 and ends on 31-03-2018
which would be 15 years after the beginning of the incident and 6
years after ending of the incident. The incident alleged in the
complaint is verbatim similar to the allegations that the petitioners
had made against other members who are now, as observed
hereinabove, wanting to shoot from the shoulders of the defacto
complainant, to register the crime.
18
9. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant is one of
the members of the Society throughout and has been an office
bearer at intermittent intervals. If he was projecting himself to be
a vigilante, he ought to have registered the crime immediately, as it
is not his case that he did not know it. Therefore, delay of 15 years
has completely vitiated the registration of crime itself. It becomes
apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL1 wherein it is
held as follows:
".... .... ....
10. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties
and the documents on record and having anxiously
considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties, it emerges that according to the complainant-
respondent, a letter in the form of complaint was written by
the Branch Manager of the ISKCON Kolkata, on 30.09.2006
addressed to the officer in-charge, Ballygunge Police Station,
Kolkata, in respect of an alleged theft of a bus having taken
place in 2001, however, no action was taken by the said
police station. Though, the complainant had reported the
matter to the concerned Police Station earlier on 22nd May,
2002, however, no action was taken in that regard. It is
pertinent to note that with regard to the said allegations
against the concerned police station, there is nothing on
record to suggest that either the said report dated
22.05.2002 or the letter dated 30.09.2006 was ever received
by the concerned police station or any follow up action was
taken by the respondent-complainant in that regard.
1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 650
19
According to the respondent-complainant, since no action
was taken on the letter dated 30th September, 2006 written
to the concerned Police Station, the complaint was lodged in
the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on
10th February, 2009, which was registered as C.R. Case No.
747 of 2009, seeking investigation under
Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C.
11. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the
case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had
taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that
the substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the
concerned Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata would not have
taken any action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the
powerful body like the ISKCON Kolkata, or on the letter
dated 30.09.2006 written by the Branch Manager of the
ISKCON, Kolkata. The respondent no. 2-complainant also did
not take any concrete action for getting the said complaint
registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long
period of eight years, till the complaint in the Court was filed
in the year 2009. In the opinion of the Court such an
inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the
court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the
proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by the ISKCON,
Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would
not have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our
opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the
complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place
eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer
misuse and abuse of the process of the court.
12. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint
filed before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was
registered at the Ballygunge Police Station on 20th February,
2009, it is discernible that except bald allegations made in
the complaint with regard to the theft of bus in question
there was no material or document produced by the
complainant to substantiate the allegations against the
appellants. Even after the investigation of the said complaint,
there was no evidence collected by the investigating officer
to prima facie satisfy the ingredients constituting the alleged
offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120B of IPC.
20
Even if the allegations made in the complaint as well as in
the Chargesheet are taken at their face value none of the
ingredients constituting the alleged offences are culled out.
The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shyam Divan for the
appellants had strenuously urged relying upon the
documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership and
registration of the said bus, that the said documents were
executed by the then authorized persons of the ISKCON
Kolkata, in our opinion, the said documents could not be
considered in these proceedings, the same being not the part
of the charge-sheet papers. In any case, there is nothing to
suggest from the other documents on record of the instant
appeals that the investigating officer had even bothered to
collect any cogent or substantive evidence against the
appellants to prosecute them for the alleged offences. There
was no expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence
collected on the documents allegedly forged to show as to by
whom, when and how the theft of vehicle and forgery of
documents were committed. Under the circumstances,
allowing such prosecution to continue would not only be an
empty formality but would be gross wastage of court's
precious time.
13. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts
have power to quash the proceedings in exercise of
powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to prevent the
abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. Though the powers under Section
482 should be sparingly exercised and with great
caution, the said powers ought to be exercised if a
clear case of abuse of process of law is made out by
the accused. In the State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy11 had held that the criminal proceedings
could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482
if the court is of the opinion that allowing the
proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the
process of the court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceedings are to be quashed.
14. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark
decision in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra),
after considering relevant provisions more particularly
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. and the principles of law
21
enunciated by this Court relating to the exercise of extra-
ordinary powers under Article 226, had laid down certain
guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing, which have
been followed in umpteen number of cases. The relevant part
thereof reads as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
22
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
15. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga
Swamy12 this Court had observed that the Court would
be justified to quash the proceedings if it finds that
initiation or continuance of such proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of Court.
16. As regards inordinate delay in filing the
complaint it has been recently observed by this Court
in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu13 that
though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground
for quashing of a criminal complaint, however
unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into
consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for
quashing a criminal complaint.
17. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if
the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no
shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the
respondent-complainant after an inordinate
unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but
sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle
the personal scores with the appellants, and that
continuation of such malicious prosecution would also
be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more
23
particularly when neither the allegations made in the
complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima
facie case against the appellants. The allegations made
against the appellants are so absurd and improbable
that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion
that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against
the appellants-accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of admitted fact of delay of 15 years in registering the
complaint, which is wholly unexplained and on the touch-stone of
the law as laid down by the Apex Court, the crime requires to be
obliterated on that sole score. But, I deem it appropriate to
examine whether the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is even
met in the case at hand. Section 420 of the IPC reads as follows:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy
the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything
which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 420 has its ingredients in Section 415. Section 415 of the
IPC reads as follows:
24
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the
person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which
act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm
to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said
to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a
deception within the meaning of this section.
Illustrations
(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service,
intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to
let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to
pay. A cheats.
(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article,
intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was
made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus
dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the
article. A cheats.
(c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article,
intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article
corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly
induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
(d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a
house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects
that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and
thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending
not to pay for it. A cheats.
(e) A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he
knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and
thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.
(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief
that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him
25
and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not
intending to repay it. A cheats.
(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief
that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant
which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly
induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such
delivery, A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the
money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards
breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not
cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of
contract.
(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has
performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he has
not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay
money. A cheats.
(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that
in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property,
sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact
of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the
purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats."
Section 415 requires the accused to lure the victim into a
transaction with a dishonest intention right from the inception. The
provision of law is unequivocal that the accused should lure a
person. Therefore, there must be a person involved who is
aggrieved of the offence of luring and cheating by the accused.
10. In the case at hand, it is a Member, a practising
Advocate, who complained of non-payment of stipend 15 years ago
26
to a student or students as the case would be. Not one student, till
today, has registered any complaint throughout the 15 years that
he has not received the stipend. This is an admitted fact. Without
there being an aggrieved person who has been cheated, cheating
cannot be complained by all and sundry, that too after 15 years of
the incident or even 6 years of the last date of the alleged incident.
Therefore, both, on the score that the offence under Section 420 of
the IPC is not even met to its remotest sense, and the delay of 15
years, the investigation in the crime cannot be permitted to be
investigated into.
11. Yet another fact that is borne out of the records is that
the petitioners have registered certain crime against the Governing
Council Members of the Society on 31-03-2024 on similar
allegations. Enquiry Committee is constituted to enquire into the
crime in Crime No.19 of 2024. Therefore, the submission of the
learned senior counsel that it could be an act of wreaking
vengeance cannot be brushed aside. In the teeth of all the
aforesaid facts, the crime cannot be permitted to be continued. It is
apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of
27
STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL2 wherein it is held as
follows:
".... .... ....
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
2
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
28
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the aforesaid facts, permitting investigation would
become an abuse of the process of law and resultantly, result in
miscarriage of justice.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition No.9690 of 2024 is allowed.
(ii) FIR in Crime No.38 of 2024 registered by CEN Police
Station, Kalaburagi City and pending before the I
Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gulbarga
stands quashed.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12704 OF 2024
13. The subject petition is preferred by accused Nos. 1 to 7 in
Crime No.128 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under
Sections 324(4), 238 and 190 of the BNS.
14. Two of the accused, accused Nos.6 and 7 are added, but
accused Nos. 1 to 5 are the same as in the companion petition -
Criminal Petition No.9690 of 2024. The issue gets triggered from a
complaint registered on 30-10-2024. The complaint reads as
follows:
" ,
7 ,
,M k ,
,
,
:- @A #.38/2024
@ (r `5 X+ c ;# #U ( (, GN ? Z A @ " `6 (
... (- .
*****
8 9 c{ ( + c ;# #U (#] @ ¥Àæ& ` =#> ;# 3 j > z /M
: 50 Sk : # = n: O †xG , ॥ F. #. 10-3/1 9 ;# •4
f 'QS g =Fa ' + 6+ -Zm• i> @ #( , @ f F #^
&@ # :05.08.2024 #( ( ) ?
&@ # :01.04.2009 #( &@ # :31.03.2018 ' U ) .> 5H ƒ @ SL
„ X ;#, } 'U ( F) > `j #`q N .( O F) > ,
, A=+ - =G `( ~ , M.V#‚ WX 3 x;> ) - + Yr (
'| RS Z „ L Z A H > RS T ) •‹ WX+ c L 6 ;
65,17,36,800/- Z ' 5FN ; ] G '#= 1) „5 "„ 4 8- 2) „5 ; ?
! FT• 3) 1 ॥ F + ? S |#1 4) 1 ॥ , Y@ B + . 5) 1 ॥ " X ;`j 7$
WgÀN Z Z (e (- ; ( `5+ ( . .
@A #.38/2024 # 420 ;# 34 ‡P `5+ &@ # : 05.08.2024
#( `5 X > ‰9 (r =G> . ;( `5, ( i = \ W#=( N 9 '#(
&@ # :15.09.2024 #( F> WA 1:00 #D Y#( 2:00 #D ' UŒ-Z „5
. . 3 / 4 7JT= 'U+ Zm ) .> 5H ƒ @ SL „ X ;#, }
‡N K z _ € h ( ) .> 5H ( @ SL „ X ;#, } + h S (
LMJ( _# & ‰9 ;}Z( > ‰9 x T H #O W•‹ ; L M ) O , Ž
@ "`6; i(+ c `5 xA ( r, 7 + + c + Š#( + Š#( > ‰9 xZ A • (r
=G> . „5 . 3 / 89 g& ( 7 - P= ;-d@ #]
> ‰9 x Z A ; L M ) `6 , Ž @ "`6 ] G . ( > ) .> 5H ( @ SL
„ X ;#, } + S(„Sh ( „5 n( •#^ - T F) > `j
#`q N .( O + 9 Q xG ' U ;G ; ... n`-+ S(„S
9 - + -`Œ- 9 \ @ SL ;+ S [ ,C~ H # Z• `=5 )
6( r '( &@ # :15.03.2022 (9 &@ # :15.03.2018 '#=
x&r ] G 7 ;F ( „5 ! "# % #& '~ i& 7(r #(
+ S(„S ' ( n( •#^ - T x&r(r #( F= G
> ‰9 x Z A ; L M ) `6 , Ž @ "`6 (e ;- G + - 5F
? ;H '#= #x.
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹
¸À»/-
(¥Àæ¢Ã¥À zÁ§±ÉÃnÖ)
¸Á॥ «oÀ¯ï £ÀUÀgÀ PÀ®§ÄgÀV
ªÉÆ.£ÀA.9448022231."
A perusal at the complaint would indicate that it is an off-shoot of
the complaint so registered on 05-08-2024 in Crime No.38 of 2024
against these very accused by the very complainant as there are
copious references to the said complaint. The complaint therein had
become a crime in Crime No.38 of 2024, which is now obliterated
for the reasons rendered in Criminal Petition No.9690 of 2024. In
the light of the crime itself being obliterated, it hardly needs any
emphasis that its off-shoot cannot survive.
15. Therefore, for the reasons so rendered in the companion
petition and its obliteration, when the crime has been taken off, the
subsequent acts based upon the said crime would also trample
down. In that light the subject petition deserves to succeed without
much ado.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) FIR in Crime No.128 of 2024 registered by the Station
Bazar Police Station, Kalaburagi City and pending before
the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Gulbarga
stands quashed.
Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand
disposed.
_______SD/-__________
JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
Bkp
CT:SS
