Dismissed

Siddartha Chowdhary v. Sub-Inspector of Police

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2021CRL.P/102088/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings for cheating, fraud, and forgery. The court found the charge sheet not wholly groundless, rejecting claims that the case was based solely on wild allegations unsupported by evidence. Consequently, quashing the proceedings was held not warranted.

What did the court decide?

The petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings were dismissed as they were found to be meritless.

Siddartha Chowdhary Vs Sub-Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

¶6

CRL.P.NO.102040 OF 2017

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRL.P.NO.102088 OF 2017

¶9

IN CRL.P.NO.102040 OF 2017

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

SUKHPAL SINGH S/O THAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ASST., GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT), M/S. GDCL JSW SITE, R/O BABA NAGAR, SAI COMPLEX, TORANGALLU R.S, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 103.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SMT. V. VIDYA. ADV.,)

¶14

AND

¶15

SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TORANAGALLU POLICE STATION,

¶16

-2-

¶17

TORANAGALLU, BALLARI DISTRICT, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶18

R. A. PRASAD S/O BODHNATH PRASAD AGE: MAJOR, SENIOR RESIDENT ENGINEER G. D. C. COMPANY, J. S. W. SITE, TORANAGALLU, R/O H.NO. N1/11, SHANKARAGUDDA COLONY N. T. V. E. MOTIHARI TOWN, E CHAMPARAN/MOTHIHARI BIHAR STATE. 3. GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO., LIMITED A-501, BUSINESS SQUARE 151, ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD, CHAKALA ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI-400093, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1; R2- NOTICE SERVED; SRI. M. S. HALLIKERI, ADV., FOR R3)

¶21

¶22

-3-

¶23

408, 409, 420, 424, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC, INSOFAR

¶24

AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶25

IN CRL.P.NO.102088 OF 2017

¶26

BETWEEN

¶27

SIDDARTHA CHOWDHARY, S/O. LATE BISHWAPATI CHOWDARI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT G4/12 SG COLONY, THORANAGALLU, SANDURU TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583103

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI. V. VIDYA, ADV.,)

¶30

AND

¶31

SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE TORANAGALLU POLICE STATION TORANAGALLU, BALLARI DISTRICT, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011.

¶32

R. A. PRASAD S/O. BODHANATH PRASAD MAJOR, SENIOR RESIDENT ENGINEER G. D. C. COMPANY J. S. W. SITE, TORANAGALLU R/O. H.NO. N1/11

¶33

-4-

¶34

SHANKARAGUDDA COLONY, N. T. V. E. MOTIHARI TOWN, E CHAMPARAN/MOTHIHARI BIHAR-845401.

¶35

GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO., LIMITED A-501, BUSINESS SQUARE 151, ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD, CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400093 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1; R2- NOTICE SERVED; SRI. M. S. HALLIKERI, ADV., FOR R3)

¶38

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 13 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT SANDUR, FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 406, 408, 409, 420, 424, 506 READ WITH SEC. 34 OF IPC (INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED), ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶39

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.02.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

-5-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

In these petitions, accused No.1 and accused No.2 are the petitioners and they are praying for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.13/2016 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Sandur for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 424, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶43

Petitioner in Crl.P.No.102040/2017 is accused No.1 and petitioner in Crl.P.No.102088/2017 is accused No.2 in C.C.No.13/2016. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. On 13.06.2015, a complaint was lodged on behalf of respondent No.3/Gannon Dunkerley and Company Limited, before Toranagallu police against two petitioners herein. The allegation in the complaint is to the effect that accused No.1 was working as Assistant General Manager (Project) and accused No.2 was working as Accounts Officer at JSW worksite at Torangallu, Ballari of M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Company Limited. The sum and substance of the allegation is that, both accused No.1 and accused No.2 had misused the machineries and

¶44

-6-

¶45

materials belonging to M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Company Limited worth Rs.14,50,972/- by using them in other sites without the consent of the company. There are other allegations to the effect that the accused had drawn Rs.11,58,999/- as hire charges for two hydra machines for about six months without necessity as the company itself was in possession of four hydra machines in working condition. It is also alleged that the accused had cooked up accounts by making false statements and thereby misappropriated amounts belonging to the employer company without approval from the higher authorities. A specific allegation was made against accused No.1 that he had shown his own hydra machines as having been utilized for the work of the employer company. The further allegation in the complaint is that even against specific instructions from the employer company not to operate bank account of the company at Toranagallu, the accused had done so and had issued cheques to several parties worth Rs.1,14,77,437/- and out of the said amount, accused had retained Rs.10,00,000/- which were

¶46

-7-

¶47

drawn under self-cheque bearing No.808032 dated 19.05.2015 from State Bank of Mysore, Torangallu. There are several other allegations similar in nature in the complaint. Based on the said complaint, the Torangallu police registered a case in crime No.91/2015 against the petitioners herein. After investigation, police filed charge sheet on 06.11.2015 in C.C.No.13/2016 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sandur for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 424, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the accusation as against petitioners are false and the complaint and charge sheet do not disclose any offences as against them. She contended that only wild allegations were made without that being supported by any documents or other credible evidence. She also submitted that the witnesses have all given stereo-typed statements and they are not entitled to be believed. She further drew the attention of this court to various documents produced by her in support of her contention

¶49

-8-

¶50

and she submitted that if the above documents are taken into consideration, it would demonstrate that the entire case of the prosecution is groundless and therefore, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned HCGP, on the other hand, submitted that the Investigation Officer has done a thorough enquiry and after collecting material evidence has filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 424, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein. Learned counsel also submitted that the documents produced by the petitioners are not entitled to be believed and they are in the nature of defence of the accused and it is difficult at this stage to accept the same and based on such acceptance to reject the charge sheet as groundless. They submitted that it is open to the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses utilizing the said documents and place the truth before the Court. They submitted that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused/petitioners have

¶52

-9-

¶53

committed various offences as alleged in the charge sheet and the charge sheet being based upon credible materials collected by the Investigation Officer is not liable to be quashed at this stage and therefore, they submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶54

I have perused the charge sheet papers and I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

¶55

The allegations in the complaint are to the effect that the petitioners were holding responsible positions under the Gannon Dunkerley and Company Limited at their worksite in JSW Torangallu. While holding such positions, the allegation is to the effect that accusedpetitioners had misused machineries and materials belonging to the employer company worth Rs.14,50,972/by using them in other sites without the consent of the company. The further allegations are to the effect that the accused No.1 had created documents to the effect that he had hired hydra machines for the purpose of employer

¶56

-10-

¶57

company and thereafter had drawn Rs.11,58,999/- in spite of the fact that there was no such need inasmuch the company itself owned four hydra machines in good conditions which were available in the worksite. It turns out that such hydra machines shown as hired by the accused belonged to accused No.1 himself. Further, it is shown from the charge sheet papers that the accused against the express instructions of the employer company not to operate the bank account, had issued series of cheques in all worth Rs.1,14,77,437/and thereby defrauded the employer company. The charge sheet papers also disclose that the Investigation Officer has recorded the statements of C.W.4 to C.W.9, who were working in JSW worksite, who have stated in support of the charge sheet allegations.

¶58

Learned counsel appearing for the accused by relying on certain documents which she claimed as the independent auditors report and other documents tried to contend that the charge sheet allegations are wholly groundless and based on the said documents this Court

¶59

-11-

¶60

should quash the entire proceedings. It is difficult during the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to appreciate as to whether the said documents are genuine or not, and the same can be demonstrated only during the full-fledged trial.

¶61

Perusal of the charge sheet papers has satisfied me that it cannot be said that the charge sheet is wholly groundless and therefore, I am of the view that exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not warranted. Therefore, there are no merits in these petitions and they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

The above petitions are dismissed.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

yan

Siddartha Chowdhary v. Sub-Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddartha Chowdhary v. Sub-Inspector of Police

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

Riyaz Ahmed Kadarsab Kalburgi Vs Ibrahimsab Husensab Siddi

Anand B Appugol Vs the Managing Director

Sri. Prabhakar S/O Vishnu Patil Vs Smt. Shoba D/O Venkatesh Prabhu

Somashekhar v. Bandi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sukhpal Singh S/O Than Singh Vs Sub-Inspector of Police

Shri. Abubakar S/O. Abdul Kadar Kavare Vs Sri. Khudabaksh S/O. Babasab Mulla