Partly allowed

Mr. Suneel Subas Pattenevar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2020CRL.P/3027/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a petition to quash an FIR. The court held that since the essence of the offence concerned fabrication of marks cards for training or employment, and hundreds of similar complaints were at hand, the Hiriyur Town Police Station's complaint was transferred to the CID for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Crime No.35/2020 from Hiriyur Town P.S. to CID for investigation.

Mr. Suneel Subas Pattenevar Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3027 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR.SUNEEL SUBAS PATTENEVAR S/O SUBHASH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR.H, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HIRIYUR TOWN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001.

¶10

MR. KOLME MAHAMED SAHEB EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM HIRIYURU DIVISION CHITRADURGA-577598.

¶11

... RESPONDENTS

¶12

(SRI. VINAYANKA.V.S, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADV FOR R2)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.35/2020 DATED 07.03.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND A1 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HIRIYUR TOWN POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETIIONER PENDING

¶14

Crl.P.No.3027/2020

¶15

¶16

BEFORE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE :

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of FIR and complaint in Crime No.35/2020 registered by Hiriyur Town P.S., now pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), and JMFC, Hiriyur.

¶20

The contention of the petitioner is that there are two complaints which have been filed for the very same offence namely fabrication of marks cards. One by Industrial Training and Employment Department, Bengaluru alleging that Marks cards which have been submitted by the petitioner and other similar situated individual had been fabricated to obtain training in the said department. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.65/2019 by Siddapura P.S.,Jayanagar Sub Division.

¶21

Crl.P.No.3027/2020

¶22

¶23

The second complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 herein alleging that by making use of fake certificates, the petitioner and other similarly situated individuals have obtained employment with respondent No.2. This complaint has been registered in Crime No.35/2020 by Hiriyur P.S., Hiriyur.

¶24

Sri Sunil Kumar H, learned counsel would submit that in essence both the matters are with regard fabrication of marks cards, though there are two different entities who have filed the complaint, the essence of offence remains same. The first complaint has already been transferred to the CID for investigation, who is investigating the matter as regards hundreds of people who are alleging to have submitted fake marks cards to obtain training and or employment.

¶25

Crl.P.No.3027/2020

¶26

¶27

On the basis of the above, he submitted that Crime No.35/2020 registered by Hiriyur P.S., also investigating the very same alleged fabrication of marks cards would have to be transferred to the CID for investigation.

¶28

Sri Srinivas B S, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that ambit of investigation in both the matters is different inasmuch as complainant in both the complaints are different and the allegations though relating to fake marks card are slightly different and as such he submitted that investigation could be carried on by both CID and Hiriyur P.S., more so since particular offence alleged to have been committed by respondent No.2 is in Hiriyur where the petitioner has obtained employment.

¶29

Having heard both the counsel, I am of the considered opinion that essence of offence as submitted by Sunil Kumar H as regards the alleged

¶30

Crl.P.No.3027/2020

¶31

¶32

fabrication of marks card which has been done either to obtain training or employment would not materially alter circumstances inasmuch as without the fabrication neither of the two uses could have been resorted to. The CID has been specially ordered to investigate the matter and more so when there are hundreds of such complaints which have been filed and the matter touching upon the entire State as a whole, I am of the considered opinion that a singe entity like CID would be a proper agency to investigate these complaints. Hence, second complaint namely Crime No.35/2020 registered by Hiriyur Town P.S., is also transferred to the CID for investigation.

¶33

Petition is partly allowed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

nms

Mr. Suneel Subas Pattenevar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Suneel Subas Pattenevar v. State of Karnataka

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

Mr D Krishna Reddy Vs M/S Binny Mill Labours Association

Ms Jaikiran Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vishalakshi Bhat Vs the Inspector of General and

Anantha Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr Shivakumar M Algud Vs the State of Karnataka

Chinnamma W/O Muniyappa Vs Srinivas B M S/O Late Munikondappa