Dismissed

Smt. Rani Samyuktha v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2020CRL.P/1810/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal proceedings were quashed under Section 482 CrPC against the accused, who was alleged to have conspired to transport iron ore without permits. The court held that prima facie documents disclosed her involvement, letting the matter stand for evidence.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing was dismissed. The interim stay application was also dismissed.

Smt. Rani Samyuktha Vs State of Karnataka by — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1810 OF 2018

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Smt. Rani Samyuktha W/o K.B. Srinivas, Aged about 48 years, #52, 2^nd Cross, Shanti Nagar, College Road, Hosapete - 583 201.

¶7

:PETITIONER

¶8

(By Sri. Sunil Kumar S. Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

State of Karnataka by Special Investigation Team, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶11

:RESPONDENT

¶12

(By Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti Spl. PP and Sri B.S. Prasad, Spl. PP)

¶13

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. C.C. NO.534/2016 (CRIME NO.5/15), PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,

¶14

¶15

BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 409, 420, 471 READ WITH 120(B) OF IPC AND SECTION 21 READ WITH 4(1)(A) OF MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957, AND RULE 165 READ WITH RULE 144 OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST RULES, 1969.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH I.A.1 OF 2018 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is by accused No.9 in Crime No.5/15 in Spl. C.C. No.534/2016, pending on the file of learned XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against her for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 471 read with 120(B) of IPC and Section 21 read with 4(1)(A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘MMDR Act’) and Rule 165 read with Rule 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (for short, ‘Forest Rules’).

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶20

¶21

3. An allegation is made in the charge-sheet

¶22

alleging that the petitioner being the proprietrix of M/s. Sri Krishna Minerals, entered into a conspiracy with Dilip Singh, Deepak Singh, Praveen Singh of M/s. Sai Krishna Minerals Pvt. Ltd.; Mr. Mohd. Asgar Khan of M/s. Arshad Exports; with one Basavaraj of M/s. Manunatheshwara Minerals; Nandakumar Singh, Shyamaraj Singh, Jairaj Singh of M/s. SVK Minerals and M/s. SB Minerals; and with one K.V. Nagaraj, Mahesh Kumar @ Kharadapudi Mahesh who used to create and supply fabricated documents by receiving risk money, & in furtherance of this conspiracy transported 16976 metric tonnes of iron ore to Bellekeri Port without valid permit and without payment of royalty and thereby caused a loss of `2,04,85,109/- to the State Exchaquer.

¶23

The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made in the charge-sheet are vague and general in nature and it does not disclose the ingredients of any of the offences charged against the petitioner; there are no materials to show that the petitioner was a party to the alleged conspiracy with any of the companies or the persons named in the charge-sheet;

¶24

¶25

there is nothing on record to show that petitioner was personally involved in the transportation of the alleged mineral to Bellekeri port and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is wholly illegal and abuse of the process of law.

¶26

Refuting this argument, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, referring to the relevant material from the charge-sheet would submit that during investigation, the account extract relating to the proprietary concern of the petitioner was collected and it discloses transfer of amounts between M/s. SB Minerals and M/s. Sri Krishna Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Further the statement of CW-134 – the proprietrix of M/s. Sri Krishna Minerals Pvt. Ltd. also has been recorded to show that the proprietary concern of the petitioner was involved in the alleged transactions and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the charges leveled against the petitioner are baseless and without any supporting documents cannot be accepted and therefore the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶27

Since the documents referred above prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioner, no fault

¶28

¶29

could be found with the order of taking cognizance and issuing summons to the petitioner. Petitioner has not made out any justifiable grounds to interfere in the impugned order. However, having regard to the contentions urged by the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to canvass the factual contentions before the Trial Court at the stage of hearing on charge.

¶30

The petition is accordingly dismissed. I.A.1/2018 seeking interim stay does not survive for

¶31

consideration and the same stands dismissed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

sac*

Smt. Rani Samyuktha v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rani Samyuktha v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anjana a Shanthaveer Vs Sri. Babu Rao Chunchansur

Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka

Dayanand Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Udaykumar Vs State of Karnataka

K Mehfuz Ali Khan Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri M Dharesh Babu Vs Sri Sayyapa Rajusravan Kumar