Allowed

Sri.S.Ram Das Naik S/O Late Somala Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2020CRL.P/100714/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 379 IPC pending against the petitioner, finding that the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence and fell under the categories established in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal for quashing FIRs.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Crime No.26/2019 are quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

Sri.S.Ram Das Naik S/O Late Somala Naik Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100714/2019

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. RAM DAS NAIK S/O LATE SOMALA NAIK (WRONGLY SHOWN FATHER NAME IN COMPLAINT VALYA NAIK), RETIRED MANAGER OF GOVERNORS OFFICE RAJ BHAVANA, BENGALURU, AGED ABOUT: 71 YEARS, R/O C.J.HALLI THANDA VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TQ: BALLARI, KARNATAKA, NOW R/AT: NO.207, 2^{N D} MAIN, JNANABHARATHI LAYOUT, NEAR KARNATAKA BANK, BENGALURU-560098. (BY SRI VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION, HOSAHALLI, KUDLIGI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583135.

¶10

SRI D.PANDURANGHA REVENUE INSPECTOR, GUDIKOTE CIRCLE, KUDLIGI TALUK-583135, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶11

... RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.26/2019 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION, HOSAHALLI, KUDLIGI TALUK, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT KUDLIGI, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner-accused No.1 has sought for quashing the entire proceedings in Crime No.26/2019 registered at Hosahalli Police Station, Kudligi Taluk for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C.

¶18

The facts in nutshell are that on the complaint filed by the Revenue Inspector, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that on 09.03.2019 afternoon at about 2.00 p.m. the complainant-Revenue Inspector on

¶19

¶20

receiving the credible information went to the spot along with staff and police officials near Chikkajogihalli Thanda and noticed that about 10 tonnes of sand was stored in the open land of petitioner-Ramdas Naik. On enquiry, it was learnt that the sand was stolen and illegally stored by the petitioner in collusion with the contractor for the purpose of constructing a community hall thereby the petitioner-accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondents. Perused the prosecution records.

¶22

It is the submission of the learned

¶23

counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the complaint do not make out a case

¶24

¶25

that the accused-petitioner had personally gone to the spot and committed theft of sand. In the complaint, it is only stated that the sand was stored in the land belonging to the petitioner, but whereas the letter issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, K.R.I.D.L., Kudligi dated 12.02.2019 at Annexure-F disclose that the sand and other building materials for construction of Sevalal Community Hall are stored in the land belonging to Sri D.M.Jaikumar, who is the Gram Panchayath Member. The petitioner was neither involved in commission of committing theft of sand nor illegally keeping the stolen property namely sand in his land. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by making frivolous allegations. In the event of

¶26

continuation of the criminal proceedings, the

¶27

¶28

petitioner being a senior citizen would be put to great hardship and injustice.

¶29

It is well settled by a long course of

¶30

decisions of the Apex Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a FIR or a complaint the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.

¶31

In a decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 789, Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia V/s Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that, t he legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the

¶32

¶33

test to be applied by the court is as to whether

¶34

the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.

¶35

In another decision reported in AIR 1982 SC 604, State of Hariyana and others

¶36

¶37

V/s Bhajanlal, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶41

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.

¶42

Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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 155(2) of the Code.

¶43

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not

¶44

¶45

disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the averments made in the complaint, there are no specific allegations that the petitioner-accused has committed theft at the spot. The only allegations are that when the complainant and other staff had gone to the spot, they have

¶53

¶54

noticed the sand in the land belonging to the petitioner-Ramdas Naik. The present complaint is filed on 09.03.2019, but the letter dated 12.02.2019 at Annexure-F, which is written by the Assistant Executive Engineer, K.R.I.D.L., Kudligi to the Panchayath Development Officer, Gram Panchayath, Makanadaku disclose that the sand and other building materials required for construction of the Sevalal building at Chikkajogihalli thanda were stored in the land belonging to Sri D.M.Jaikumar, Gram Panchayath Member. Therefore, there is no clinching material to prove the involvement of the petitioner-accused either in theft of sand or illegal storage of the sand in his land. The present case false under the category No.3 and 5 in the decision of Apex Court in Bhajanlal case.

¶55

¶56

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for quashing the proceedings. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Criminal proceedings in Crime No.26/2019 of respondent No.1-Hosahalli Police Station, Hosahalli, Kudligi taluk are quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶57

SD/JUDGE

¶58

CLK

Sri.S.Ram Das Naik S/O Late Somala Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.S.Ram Das Naik S/O Late Somala Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Mahesh S/O Appasab Bhate Vs State of Karnatka

Shri.Basavraj S/O Shivappa Bhate Vs State

Shri.Basavraj S/O Shivappa Bhate Vs State

Shri.Rajendra Banduji Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesh S/O. Veerappa Lakkannavar, Vs Gangawwa @ Mala W/O. Mahesh Lakkannavar

Sri.Manjunath S/O Ningappa Yeddalli Vs the State of Karnataka