Allowed

Sri Alevoor Yogish Acharya v. Mr Praveen Acharya

Karnataka HC28 Sept 2021CRL.P/7778/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an FIR registered under Sections 505 and 420 of the IPC against the petitioner. The court held that the complaint failed to narrate the specific allegations required to establish offence under Section 505(b) and lacked the essential ingredients for cheating under Section 420.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings in Crime No. 255/2017 were quashed.

Sri Alevoor Yogish Acharya Vs Mr Praveen Acharya — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7778/2017

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MR. ALEVOOR YOGISH ACHARYA, AGED 53 YEARS, SON OF SRINIVASA ACHARYA, RESIDING AT JODU RASTHE, ALEVOOR POST, UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT, HONORARY PRESIDENT, VISHWAKARMA OKKUTA, D.K.DISTRICT AND UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 216. ... PETITIONER

¶9

[BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶10

AND

¶11

MR. PRAVEEN ACHARYA, ADULT, SON OF VASUDEVA ACHARYA, RESIDING AT MATHRUCHAYA, RANGANAKERE, HERADI VILLAGE, BARKURU - 576 210. UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶12

THE STATE - THROUGH THE

¶13

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BRAHMAVARA POLICE STATION, BRAHMAVARA.

¶14

REPRESENTED BY

¶15

¶16

THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

[BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING);

¶19

SRI.S.V.SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.255/2017 OF BRAHMAVARA POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 505 AND 420 OF IPC AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT AND IN THE SAID CASE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.255/2017 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C. Court, Kundapura, Udupi District for offences punishable under Sections 505 and 420 of IPC.

¶24

Heard Sri. P. P. Hegde, learned counsel

¶25

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. S.V. Shastry, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Smt. Namitha

¶26

¶27

Mahesh B.G., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶28

The facts projected by the complainant are

¶29

as follows:

¶30

The complainant, who claims to be a public spirited person alleges that the petitioner has cheated the public in the name of funds being collected on 'Paadapuja' and this is circulated by way of messages being sent over WhatsApp by the petitioner, who claims to be interested in the affairs of the 'Vishwa Karma Okkuta' .

¶31

The allegations levelled against the petitioner is under Sections 505 and 420 of IPC. Section 505 of the IPC deals with statements conducing to public mischief. The complainant does not narrate as to what statement of the petitioner has caused public mischief

¶32

¶33

or the ingredients of Section 505 of IPC. Section 505 of IPC reads as follows:

¶34

" 505. Statements conducing to public

¶35

mischief. -[(1)] Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,-

¶36

(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, [sailor or airman] in the Army, [Navy or Air Force] [of India] to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or

¶37

(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or

¶38

(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community,

¶39

shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.

¶40

¶41

[(2)] Statements creating or promoting

¶42

enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. - Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or illwill between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.]

¶43

[(3)] Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc. -Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) in any place of worship in an assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.]

¶44

Exception.-It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumour or report is true and

¶45

¶46

makes, publishes or circulates it [in good faith and] without any such intent as aforesaid.]"

¶47

Section 505 of IPC takes within its sweep three ingredients for an offence to be made punishable under the said provision.

¶48

A bare perusal of the complaint cannot remotely connect with the ingredients of Section 505 of IPC as Section 505(b) of IPC directs that if whoever with an intent to cause or likely to cause fear in public to any section of the public may be induced to commit an offence against the State or public tranquility.

¶49

What has happened with regard to the messages that were sent on the complainant is also not forthcoming in the complaint. Who is the complainant in relation to the petitioner or the affairs of the 'Vishwa Karma Okkuta' is also not forthcoming in the complaint. The allegation that it is likely incite breach of public peace against any other class or community is also not

¶50

¶51

forthcoming in the complaint. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 505 of IPC cannot be seen to be fulfilled in the complaint that is registered against the petitioner.

¶52

The other offence that is alleged in the FIR is Section 420 of IPC. For an offence under Section 420 of IPC, the ingredients that are obtaining in Section 415 of IPC will have to be fulfilled. For Section 415 of IPC, there should be inducement at the outset by the accused with an intent to cheat the victim. The complainant is not the victim. There is no inducement from the hands of the petitioner to the complainant for the complainant to raise an alarm with regard to cheating by the petitioner. Therefore, none of the offences that are alleged against the petitioner can even be remotely traced in the complaint for the reason that the complainant does not narrate any particular offence with regard to Section 505 of IPC or cheating under Section 420 of IPC. The trial, if permitted to be

¶53

¶54

continued, would lead to abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶55

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶58

ii. The proceedings pending in Crime No.255/2017 before the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C. Court, Kundapura, Udupi District stands quashed.

¶59

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2018 is disposed of as it does not survive for consideration.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

SJK

Sri Alevoor Yogish Acharya v. Mr Praveen Acharya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Alevoor Yogish Acharya v. Mr Praveen Acharya

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

Sri M K Rajashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Mary Thannickal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Madhavi Vs State of Karnataka

Ravigowda H Vs Ashoka S

Dr. (Mrs.) Chitralekha. M. R. Vs Mysuru City Corporation

Ms Sangeetha Reddy Vs State of Karnataka