Karnataka High Court
Mahadev Kallappa Mungoli Alias Ningoli vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:849
CRL.P No. 103532 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103532 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MAHADEV KALLAPPA MUNGOLI @ NINGOLI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: BEHIND LIC OFFICE,
MAHALINGESHWAR NAGAR,
TALUKA: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 307.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASAD PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH GOKAK TOWN P.S.
GOKAK REPRESENTED
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
Digitally signed BENCH, DHARWAD - 580 011.
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 2. ANISH GOPAL YARDI,
Location: High
Court of AGE: 38 YEARS,
Karnataka OCC: LAW PRACTITIONER,
R/O: KILLA, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591 307.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528
OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN SPECIAL
CASE NO.87/2022 ARISING OUT OF GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION
IN ITS CRIME NO.132/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 420, R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND U/S 21,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:849
CRL.P No. 103532 of 2024
(1) (2) (3) AND 23 OF BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT
SCHEMES ACT, 2019, SO FAR AS THE PRESENT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in Spl. Case No.87/2022
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section
21(1)(2)(3) and 23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Act, 2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment
rendered by this Court in the case of Vijay Mohan
Honakamble and another vs. State of Karnataka and
others in Crl.P. No.101143/2022, disposed off on
17.08.2023, wherein the identical issues have been raised
and have been answered in favour of the petitioner
therein. This Court has held as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:849
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the issue in the subject lis is
answered in the judgment rendered by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Santosh Kumar S/o. Gadeppa Khot &
another Vs. the State of Karnataka &
another in W.P. No.102888/2022, disposed off
on 19th October 2022, wherein it is held as
under:
"The FIR is registered in Crime No.257/2021
for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and
511 of IPC and Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the
Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019
(hereinafter referred to as "Act" for short) alleging
that accused Nos.1 and 4 induced the people to
deposit money stating that the amount invested will
be doubled and the said amount which is invested by
the public have been utilized for own purpose and for
other purposes and during the course of
investigation, the petitioners have been arrayed as
accused Nos.2 and 3, as they were collecting the
money from the public as agents of accused No.1.
Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that Section 27 of the Act
specifies that no Designated Court shall take
cognizance of an offence punishable under that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:849
section except upon a complaint made by the
Regulator. He further submits that the registration of
the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections
21(1) and 21(2) of the Act is one without authority of
law.
3. The learned HCGP appearing for the
respondent-State submits that the petitioners having
collected money illegally from the people, committed
the aforesaid offences and the Police have registered
the FIR and the same does not warrant any
interference.
4. I have examined the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Section 7 of the Act, specifies that
appropriate government shall, by notification,
appoint one or more officers not below the rank of
Secretary to that government, as the competent
authority for the purpose of this Act. Section 8
specifies that the appropriate government shall, with
the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the concerned
High Court, by notification, constitute one or more
Courts known as the Designated Courts for such area
or areas to deal with the matters to which the
provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Act applies. Section 27 of the Act specifies
that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an
NC: 2025:KHC-D:849
offence punishable under that section except upon a
complaint made by the Regulator.
6. A conjoint reading of this provision
indicates that the government shall first appoint a
Regulator and thereafter designate a Court to deal
with the matters to which the provisions of this Act
apply and the Designated Court can take cognizance
only on a complaint in writing made by the
Regulator.
7. In the instant case, the Regulator has
not filed a complaint before the Designated Court so
as to take cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act. However,
the Police have registered the FIR for the aforesaid
offences. Hence, the registration of the FIR for the
aforesaid offences is one without authority of law.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
Writ Petition is allowed.
The impugned FIR in Crime No.257/2021 filed
by the Chikkodi Police Station insofar it relates to
accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed."
In the light of the issue standing answered
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:849
aforesaid order, the petitioner is also entitled to
the very same relief."
3. Learned AGA would not dispute the position of
law as is observed in the aforesaid case referred supra.
4. Therefore, for the reasons rendered therein, the
subject petition also deserves to be succeed.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl. Case
No.87/2022 qua the petitioner stands
quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
NAA/CT-ASC
