Allowed

Sri.Tapash Choudary v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2021CRL.P/2212/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the petitioners must be allowed to file the petition as the impugned order taking cognizance should be quashed as the matter was covered by a previous order where the license was renewed with retrospective effect, rendering the continuation of business valid.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06.08.2018 taking cognizance against the petitioners under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, stood quashed.

Sri.Tapash Choudary Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2212/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SRI.TAPASH CHOUDARY S/O. JNAN CHAUDHURI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: RETD. MANAGING DIRECTOR C/O G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NO.744, 10^TH A MAIN, 1^ST STAGE 4^TH BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT NEAR HENNUR CROSS BENGALURU-560043

¶9

2 . SRI.RAJEEV SHARMA S/O SHEESHPAL SHARMA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MANAGING DIRECTOR G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD., NO.744, 10^TH A MAIN 1^ST STAGE 4^TH BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT NEAR HENNUR CROSS BENGALURU-560043

¶10

… PETITIONERS (BY SRI N.B.NIJALINGAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HENNUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

¶13

2 . SRI.B.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH

¶14

AGE: MAJOR OCC: POLICE INSPECTOR INTERNAL SECURITY, EAST DIVISION BENGALURU CITY-560014.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.08.2018 PASSED IN C.C.NO.23020/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MMTC-1 COURT AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU CITY PRODUCED AS DOCUMENT No.14, TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETTIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 20 R/W 4 OF PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES (REGULATION) ACT.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to quash the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 passed in C.C.No.23020/2018 pending on the file of MMTC-I Court, at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City, for taking cognizance against the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 20 read with Section 4 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and pass any appropriate order or direction as this Court deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶21

¶22

The factual matrix of the case is that the respondents have initiated the proceedings against the

¶23

petitioners herein making an allegation that, carrying on the company activities after expiry of the license for running private security agencies and the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the issue has been covered by the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.100538/2019, wherein, this Court held in paragraph No.5 that an application was filed before expiry of the license to renew the same and the same was rejected. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and in the appeal direction was given to consider his application and accordingly in terms of Annexure ‘L’, the same was considered and retrospective effect was given while renewing the license from 24.01.2016. Having taken note of Annexure ‘L’, permitting the petitioners to continue the business with retrospective effect from 24.01.2016 and the same is valid. Hence, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the initiation

¶25

¶26

of the proceedings against the petitioners. In the case on hand,

¶27

the license was renewed vide order dated 08.01.2018. Hence, the matter is covered by the order passed in Criminal Petition No.100538/2019. Hence, this petition deserves to be allowed.

¶28

In view of the observations made above, I pass the

¶29

following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶32

(ii) The impugned order dated 06.08.2018 passed in C.C.No.23020/2018 pending on the file of MMTC-I Court, at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City for an offence punishable under Section 20 read with Section 4 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, is hereby quashed.

¶33

In view of allowing the main petition, I.A.No.1/2020 for

¶34

stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

cp*

Sri.Tapash Choudary v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Tapash Choudary 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

Sri B T Manjappa @ B T Manjappa Gowda Vs State by Thirthahalli Police

Sri Jigar Laxmichand Chadva Vs the State of Karnataka

K J Dhananjaya Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Tapas Rudrapatna Vs the Enforcement Officer

Raja Gopala Reddy Vs Smt P N Suvarnamma

N. J. Ravishankar Vs State of Karnataka