Karnataka High Court

Mr Ranjith Naren @ Michael vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2025

Author: K.Somashekar

Bench: K.Somashekar

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:873
                                                     CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                          BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7735 OF 2024
                                  (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
                 BETWEEN:

                       MR RANJITH NAREN @ MICHAEL
                       S/O GANGADHARA KURUF
                       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
                       RESIDING AT NO.21
                       KRISHNA NIVAS, 2ND B CROSS
                       VIJAYA BANK COLONY
                       HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560043.
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                 (BY SRI. H.S. SHANKAR - ADVOCATE)

Digitally        AND:
signed by
SUMATHY          1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KANNAN                 BY RAMAMURTY NAGAR POLICE STATION
Location: High         REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC
Court of
Karnataka              PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       BENGALURU-560001.

                 2.    SRI H. LAKSHMINARAYANA PRASAD
                       WORKING AS POLICE INSPECTOR
                       HENNUR POLICE STATION
                       BENGALURU-560001.
                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
                 (BY SRI. THEJESH P - HCGP)

                        THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO 1) QUASH
                 THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.55321/2016 PENDING AGAINST
                 THE PETITIONER ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED X ADDL. CMM,
                              -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:873
                                      CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024




MAYOHALL UNIT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419,
420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 120B OF IPC R/W SEC. 149 OF
IPC AND SEC. 12(1)(B) OF INDIAN PASSPORT ACT, 1967;
2) QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET / FINAL REPORT DATED
10.05.2016 FILED IN C.C.NO.55321/2016 ANNEXURE-B         FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 120B
OF IPC R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 12(1)(B) OF INDIAN
PASSPORT ACT, 1967; 3) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
03.02.2024, ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE LEARNED X-ADDL.
CMM, MAYO HALL UNIT AT BENGALURU ON APPLICATION FOR
DISCHARGE IN C.C.NO.55321/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

     THIS CRL.P., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR


                       ORAL ORDER

The petitioner / Accused No.3 has filed this petition

seeking to i) quash the proceedings in C.C.No.55321/2016

pending against him ii) to quash the final report dated

10.05.2016 in C.C.No.55321/2016 Annexure-"B" and iii) to set

aside the order dated 03.02.2024 Annexure-"F" on the file of

the X Addl. CMM, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.

NC: 2025:KHC:873

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri H.S. Shankar for the

petitioner / Accused No.3 and the learned HCGP Shri P. Thejesh

for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-

accused No.2 namely Vimalchand Sandeep Gadia, had filed a

petition in Crl.P.No.3556/2017, which came to be allowed by

order dated 24.11.2020 vide Annexure-"G" and the case

against him in C.C.No.55321/2016 arising out of Cr.No.70/2016

came to be quashed. The offences related to Sections 419,

420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 120B read with Section 149 of

the IPC, besides Section 12(1)(B) of the Indian Passports Act,

1967. Hence, he submits that the case of the present

petitioner may also be considered on the same footing as that

of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3556/2017.

4. The petitioner herein is arraigned as Accused No.3 in

Crime No.70/2016 of Ramamurthynagar P.S. as per the charge

sheet. The second respondent who was the Police Inspector of

Hennur Police Station, had filed a complaint on 08.12.2016

alleging human trafficking of minor children by creating forged

documents on the allegation that the petitioner had attempted

to help human trafficking from India to USA. Based on the said

NC: 2025:KHC:873

allegations, an FIR in Cr.No.70/2016 was registered for

offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471,

120 of IPC and Section 12(1)(B) of the Passports Act, 1967.

Subsequent to filing of the FIR, the Police Inspector

investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the

petitioner and other accused persons in C.C.No.55321/2016

wherein the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.3.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that though the allegation against the petitioner is

that he had misused the name of his wife and obtained Birth

Certificate to the children and further alleged that Accused No.3

took the help of other co-accused for human trafficking of the

above said children from India to USA, it is contented that

there is no allegation in the complaint against the petitioner but

it is subsequently that the petitioner's name has been falsely

implicated as Accused No.3. Hence, it is contended that the

respondent / police, without proper investigation or proper

application of mind, have registered an FIR against the

petitioner.

6. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that

the petitioner / Accused No.3 has no direct or indirect

NC: 2025:KHC:873

relationship with any other accused. Further, the words

'sufficient ground for proceedings', is not appearing as per the

charge sheet. It is contented that the impugned order passed

by the learned Magistrate is not proper and as such, the

cognizance is liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the

same is passed on a wrong appreciation of facts and

allegations, without any prima facie involvement of the

petitioner.

7. The learned counsel further points out to the order of

this Court in Crl.P.No.3556/2017 dated 24.11.2020 wherein

this Court has quashed the charge sheet filed against Accused

No.2 in C.C.No.55321/2016 and submits that the allegations

against the present petitioner and Accused No.2 are one and

the same and hence submits that the charge-sheet filed against

the petitioner as well requires to be quashed.

8. It is submitted that even on merits, the prosecution

has failed to make out a case against the petitioner / Accused

No.3 for human trafficking. It is further contented that

complaint has not been registered by an aggrieved person and

it is only suo moto that Respondent No.1 has registered a

complaint against the petitioner. If in fact the petitioner has

NC: 2025:KHC:873

done any act of human trafficking, the aggrieved person would

have registered a complaint against him, but till date, there is

not even a single allegation made against the petitioner so far.

9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel

places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

of R.P. KAPOOR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB (AIR 1960 SC

866), wherein it is held that, the allegation in the First

Information Report or the complaint which was registered by

the police, even if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offences

alleged. Where the allegations constitute an offence but there is

no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or

manifestly failed to prove the charges, then power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be applied. Hence, he contends

that the reliance of the above judgment ought to be applied

and he prays this court to exercise the power under Section

482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated

against this accused.

10. On all these grounds, learned counsel prays this court

for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thereby to

quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the

NC: 2025:KHC:873

petitioner / Accused No.3 in C.C.No.55321/2016 arising in

Cr.No.70/2016 of Hennur Police Station.

11. On the other hand, learned HCGP for the State has

taken me through the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. relating to

the offences lugged against this accused in Cr.No.70/2016 for

the offences under the IPC, 1860 and so also for the offences

under Section 12(1)(B) of the Indian Passports Act, 1967.

There is no dispute that charge-sheet has been laid against the

accused. Hence, quashing this case at this stage does not

arise, as the accused is required to face trial for the alleged

offences of human trafficking along with the co-accused.

Merely because the case as against the co-accused No.2 has

been quashed, the same cannot be a ground to quash the

proceedings as against the present accused as well. On this

premise, the learned HCGP for the State is seeking to dismiss

the petition, as there is no justifiable ground in this petition for

discharging the accused from the alleged offences.

12. In the backdrop of the contentious contentions of the

learned counsel for the petitioner / Accused No.3 as well as the

counter contentions of the learned HCGP for the State, it is

relevant to state that the Police Inspector registered a

NC: 2025:KHC:873

complaint with the second respondent - police against the

accused and others in Cr.No.70/2016, for offences of human

trafficking of minor children from India to USA by creating fake

documents as Passport and Visa. But it is to be noticed that

there is no specific overt act attributed against the present

petitioner / Accused No.3 for he having involved in human

trafficking with other co-accused by forging documents.

Further, there is no specific complaint filed by an aggrieved

person and FIR is initiated only on a suo moto complaint. It is

this circumstance that requires to be considered for exercise of

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If there is any miscarriage of

justice and abuse of process of law, certainly it requires to be

interfered with. If not, there shall be some miscarriage of

justice to the gravamen of the allegation made in the

complaint. Therefore, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs.

L.Muniswamy and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489,

wherein, the relevant portion reads thus:

"In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the

NC: 2025:KHC:873

process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's has inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice."

13. The ratio of the said reliance is squarely applicable to

the present case on hand, wherein the I.O. has laid the charge-

sheet against this accused in C.C.No.55321/2016 arising out of

Cr.No.70/2016. It is true that charge-sheet has been laid

against the accused as contemplated under Section 173(2) of

Cr.P.C. by following all requirements. But the substance in the

charge-sheet cannot be said that there is a specific role made

by the petitioner along with the other accused. For this reason,

it is said that the petitioner is deserving to seek quashing of the

entire criminal proceedings initiated against him in

C.C.No.55321/2016. The further circumstance that the petition

filed by the co-accused namely, Accused No.2 also having been