Allowed

M/S Oscar Equipments Private Limited v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Nov 2021WP/19582/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Articles 226, 227 of Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside order dismissing application to defreeze bank account. Court remitted matter to Magistrate to reconsider documents produced by petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to Magistrate to pass orders on application after considering documents produced by petitioner.

M/S Oscar Equipments Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 19582 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

M/s Oscar Equipments Private Limited, Having its Office at Mouja – Bhasa, D.H.Road, PS – Bishnupur, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata, West Bengal – 743503 Represented by its GPA Holder Mr.Raunak Chhajer, S/o Kamal Singh Chhajer, Aged about 32 years.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni, Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Karnataka, By Banashankari Police Station, Jayanagar Sub-Division, 9^th Main Road, Thyagaraja Nagar, Banashankari, Bangalore-560 070, Rep. by Station House Officer.

¶13

…Respondent

¶14

(By Sri.Rohith B.J, HCGP)

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C praying to call for entire records in FIR bearing Cr. No.148/2020 registered by the respondent police for

¶16

¶17

offences punishable under sections 120B, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC, pending on the file of IV ACMM, Bengaluru, set aside the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by IV ACMM, Bengaluru, in Cr.No.148/2020 vide Annex.A and etc.,

¶18

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri Manu Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rohith, the High Court Government Pleader.

¶21

In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482

¶22

of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has sought to set aside the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crime No. 148/2020.

¶23

The petitioner made an application under sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C seeking to defreeze its bank account 003451000020 at ICICI Bank Limited,

¶24

¶25

Ballygunge Branch. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the application.

¶26

It is the submission of Sri Manu Kulkarni that

¶27

the petitioner is not shown as an accused in the FIR registered at the instance of Angad Singh Atwal. The petitioner has business dealings with DRDO and also accused No.6 M/s Kinetix Solutions Private Limited. The petitioner is a supplier of defence related equipments. The supplies that the petitioner use to make were all inspected. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer wrote a letter to accused No.6 for giving details of the business transactions and in reply accused No.6 mentioned the name of the petitioner and this resulted in freezing the bank account of the petitioner. It is his submission that the invoices that the petitioner produced before the Magistrate do very well indicate that except the business transactions it has nothing to do with

¶28

¶29

accusations found in the FIR. The Police Inspector has written a letter to the bank in a routine manner to freeze all the bank accounts of accused No.6. This

¶30

has seriously affected the business of the petitioner.

¶31

High Court Government Pleader submits that

¶32

the impugned order does not indicate that the petitioner had produced the invoices before the Magistrate. The Magistrate would have taken a decision based on the invoices if they had been produced and therefore the matter may be remitted to the Magistrate Court for passing fresh orders considering the documents.

¶33

According to the petitioner, it is just a supplier of equipments to DRDO and accused No.6. It appears that after the petitioner made an application

¶34

under section 451 for defreezing the account, the investigating officer submitted information to the

¶35

¶36

Magistrate showing the names of about 56

¶37

beneficiaries. In this list the name of the petitioner is found at Sl. No. 6. What is interesting is that the bank accounts of all the beneficiaries have been freezed. The name of a lawyers’ firm is also mentioned in the list. This leads to suspect the action taken by the investigating officer. Be that as it may. The petitioner has produced some documents which show that M/s Kinetix Solutions Private Limited placed orders with the petitioner for supplying certain quantity of goods. The definite case of the petitioner is that invoices for Rs.2,09,95,597/ - were raised in connection with business dealings with DRDO and M/s Kinetix Solutions Private Limited since 2013 and it has nothing to do with the allegations found in the FIR. If this is the case of the petitioner and if really these documents were produced before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered those

¶38

¶39

documents. The impugned order does not reflect any reference to these documents. Therefore as has been argued by the Government Pleader, the matter may be remitted to the learned Magistrate for applying his mind on the documents to decide the application afresh. Hence, I pass the following :

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(a) Petition is allowed.

¶42

(b) The impugned order dated 11.10.2021 passed by IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crime No. 148/2020 is set aside.

¶43

(c) The matter stands remitted to the learned Magistrate for passing orders once again on the application made by the petitioner. The Magistrate shall consider the documents produced by the petitioner.

¶44

¶45

(d) The Magistrate may permit the petitioner’s counsel and the prosecutor to again argue on the application.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

ckl

M/S Oscar Equipments Private Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Oscar Equipments Private Limited 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

Kumar M Yadahalli Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Goutham Jewellers Vs Sri K R Ashwathnarayan

Sri. B L Ravindranath Vs State of Karnataka

Rajesh Hegde Vs the State

Mr Rajesh Parekh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. Mahesh Vs State by Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station