Dismissed

Sri. J. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2021CRL.P/2342/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR and charge sheet in a cheating case. The court held that since the investigation was completed and a charge sheet filed, the petition had become infructuous, and the matter lies within the domain of the trial court for evidence appreciation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed, and the connected application for stay is also dismissed. No relief to the petitioner.

Sri. J. Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2342/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. J. MANJUNATH S/O. R. JAGANATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.106, LAKSHMIKRISHNA APARTMENT, B.E.M.L. LAYOUT, R.R. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098. …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADV., (ABSENT))

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

SRI. HANAMANTHA SADASHIVA DESAI, S/O. SADASHIVA, AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOLURAGI VILLAGE, SAVALASANGA POST, INDI THALUK, VIJAYAPURA VILLAGE-562135.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R-1 APPEARING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET IN CR.NO.187/2018, DATED 27.12.2018, ORDERED BY THE HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF THE IV ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.18821/2019, AS PER ANNEXURE A AND B AND ALLOW THIS PETITION, BY QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.18821/2019 BEFORE HON’BLE IV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

None appears for the petitioner either through video conference or present physically before the Court. But, learned HCGP for the respondent-State is physically present before the Court.

¶20

Under this petition, the petitioner is seeking for quashing of FIR and charge sheet in Crime No.187/2018 dated 27.12.2018 and also for quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.18821/201 relating to the aforesaid crime registered by High Grounds Police Station, Bangalore City. But, in this matter, the previous order dated 02.03.2021 passed by this Court

¶21

¶22

indicates that respondent - Police have already

¶23

completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. As such, the present petition does not survive for consideration for seeking quashing of case in Crime No.187/2018 and even in the order dated 17.03.2021 also, learned HCGP for respondent - State submitted that the petition has become infructuous in view of the fact that the respondent - Police i.e., High Grounds Police Station have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet.

¶24

The FIR dated 27.12.2018 vide Annexure-A

¶25

has been recorded by the High Grounds Police Station, Bangalore City, by registering the case in Crime No.187/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Based on the complaint lodged by one Hanamantha Sadhashiva Desai, the aforesaid crime came to be registered by the respondent-police having jurisdiction.

¶26

¶27

Subsequent to registration of the case

¶28

against the accused, the Investigation officer thoroughly investigated the case and laid the charge sheet. The petitioner who is arraigned as accused is working in a Government Department and also drawing handsome salary and as he had financial difficulty, he obtained amount in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from respondent No.2/complainant. Therefore, the petitioner/accused

¶29

and respondent No.2/complainant were well known to each other and in good faith and relationship only the petitioner has taken Rs.2,50,000/from the complainant in the month of January, 2017, through account transfer and had issued a post dated cheque for security. In the prayer column of the petition, there is insertion of CC.No.18821/2019 which is pending before the Court of IV ACMM, Bangalore, vide Annexures-A and B.

¶30

¶31

But when once the charge sheet has been

¶32

laid against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction to proceed further in accordance with law, the accused has to face trial for the offences alleged and even subsequent to closure of evidence, even on the part of the prosecution as well as on the part of the defence, it is subjected to examination of witnesses, it is the domain vested with the trial Court to appreciate the evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But, the case in Crime No.187/2018 has been registered by the High Grounds Police Station, Bangalore and even though, investigation has been done by the Investigation Agency and filed the charge sheet against the accused, insertion of C.C.No.18821/2019 in the prayer column of the petition and the charges leveled against the accused is based on the materials available on record.

¶33

¶34

Section 482 Cr.P.C., has to be exercised

¶35

judicially, judiciously, sparingly and cautiously, to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. Even, registration of crime, it is only a document and recording of FIR, it is not an encyclopedia.

¶36

Therefore, when once the FIR has been recorded by the police having jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., subsequently, the domain is vested with the Investigating Agency to proceed for investigation by following the requisite conditions under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Agency shall record the statement of witnesses and so also secure the material documents and draw the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. In the instant case, petitioner is seeking for quashing of criminal proceedings in Crime No.187/2018 and even for quashing of proceedings in CC.No.18821/2019, which is inserted later on in the prayer column, but it does not

¶37

¶38

hold any substance and consequently, petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶39

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Criminal petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. Upon dismissal of the main petition, IA.No.1/2019 for seeking stay does not survive for consideration and same is dismissed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sri. J. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. J. Manjunath 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 Syed Naseeruddin Vs the State of Karnataka

Raja Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Roshan Pinto Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Bahubali M B Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Mailuswamy

N.V. Babu Reddy Vs State by