Allowed

K Ravindra S/O Kakarla Ramayya v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Sept 2022CRL.P/100221/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for cheating and criminal conspiracy. The court held the dispute was purely civil in nature, involving a partnership firm, and continued criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in P.C.No.244/ 2021 pending before Principal Civil Judge, Hosapete, Ballari, are hereby quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner.

K Ravindra S/O Kakarla Ramayya Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100221/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K RAVINDRA S/O KAKARLA RAMAYYA, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 31^ST WARD, VIDYANAGAR, BATHRI PULLAYYA COMPOUND, BALLARI-580004.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶13

THROUGH HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001.

¶14

SRINIVASA G. S/O. PULIAH GORTHI,

¶15

AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. C/O. J. MRUTHYNJAYA S.V. KINGS COURT, SIDDESWARA BADAVANE, HOSAPETE-583201.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH., HCGP FOR R1)

¶18

(BY SRI. VISWANATH HEGDE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN 244/2021 AND FIR IN CRIME NO.44/2021 BY HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE PENDING BEFORE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE, BALLARI AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 405, 406, 409, 415, 417, 418, 420, 423, 468, 477, 506, 120(B) OF IPC.

¶21

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused, has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings initiated in P.C.244/2021 (Crime No.44/2021) of Hosapete Rural, P.S. on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Hosapete, Ballari, for the offences punishable under Section 405, 406, 409, 415, 417, 418, 420, 423, 468, 477, 506, 120(B) of IPC.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 filed a private complaint on 03.06.2021 against the petitioner in P.C.No.244/202. Alleging that

¶25

¶26

petitioner, respondent No.2 and others formed a

¶27

partnership firm by name of HBB Enterprises and it is registered with District Registrar and business was started during the year 2018. Initially, the investment was Rs.10 lakh per capita and petitioner offered 35% share in the profit of the firm to the respondent No.2 and induced him to arrange for additional capital. The account was managed and operated by petitioner and Sri.C.Hamumanthappa. At the inducement of petitioner, complainant has invested Rs,62,28,000/-. However, petitioner has failed to give him the promised profits at the rate of 35% and has cheated him for more than Rs.1 Crore and hence the complaint.

¶28

Respondent No.1 has appeared through learned

¶29

High Court Government Pleader.

¶30

Respondent No.2 has appeared through

¶31

counsel.

¶32

During the course of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of taking cognizance and directing the concerned Police to

¶33

¶34

investigate the matter is opposed to law, facts and circumstance of the case. In order to grab all the property from the petitioner, respondent No.2 tried to file a false complaint before the Police and when the concerned Police refused to take the complaint, he has filed this private complaint without following the mandatory directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The trial Court also without application of mind has referred the case for investigation. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is purely of civil in nature. In fact, petitioner has maintained entire records. Petitioner has given money to the complainant to construct his house and also provided all the materials. Misusing the favours, respondent No.2 has filed suit in O.S.No.527/2021 before the Civil Judge and JMFC Ballari and in the light of the same, the criminal case is not maintainable. The wife of complainant is suffering from cancer and petitioner has paid more than Rs.30 lakh for her treatment. Suppressing all these facts, respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent No.2 has invested Rs.63,28,000/- with the

¶35

¶36

petitioner. The allegation in the complaint does not attract the provisions of offences for which reference is made. Only to harass the petitioner, the complainant has chosen to file a false complaint and prays to quash the proceedings.

¶37

In support of his arguments learned counsel for

¶38

petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

¶39

i) Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Puttaparthi Ananthpur District, Andhra Pradesh Vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ (Sathya Sai’s case)

¶40

ii) Sri. Narayana Swamy T., and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others² (Narayana Swamy’s case)

¶41

iii)Mr.H.Sunil Kumar S/o.A.Hamsaraj Vs. State of Karnataka and another³ (Sunil’s Case)

¶42

On the other hand learned counsel for

¶43

respondent No.2 has argued and submitted that the matter requires investigation by the police. Though the

¶44

1 2021 (6) Kar.L.J.667

¶45

2 MANU/KA/3128/2022

¶46

3 Criminal Petition No.20.12.2021

¶47

¶48

complaint is not accompanied with an affidavit there is

¶49

verification and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶50

In support of his arguments learned counsel for

¶51

respondent No.2 has relied upon following decisions:

¶52

i) Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others⁴ (Priyanka Srivastava’s case)

¶53

ii) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Maharastra and others ( Neeharika’s Case)⁵

¶54

iii) Arunkumar S/o. Dwarakadas Loya Vs. The state through Chowk Police Station Kalaburgi and another⁶

¶55

Heard the arguments and perused the materials

¶56

on record.

¶57

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner, respondent No.2-Sri.C.Hamumanthappa and Sri. C.Basavaraj, formed a partnership firm by name of HBB Enterprises and engaged in the business of crushers and

¶58

4 (2015) 6 SCC 287

¶59

5 2021 SCC Online SC 315

¶60

6 Criminal Petition No.201215/2020

¶61

¶62

handle mining operations. It appears, initial investment was 10 lakh per head and for additional capital that may be arranged according to the respondent No.2 interest at the rate of 24% was offered as per the terms of the partnership firm. Petitioner and Sri.C.Hamumanthappa were authorized to operate the account of the firm.

¶63

It is alleged that the respondent No.2 has borrowed sum of Rs.61,78,000/- and invested the same and he also allowed the firm to use 3 JCB’s belonging to him. Respondent No.2 has also alleged that he procured the work order for Rs.3,57,54,000/- in addition to making personal investment. Alleging that utilizing all the investments made by him and also the work order procured, petitioner has conducted business but failed to pay the returns as promised and also interest.

¶64

During the complaint, the respondent No.2 has not disclosed the fact that he has filed suit for recovery of the amount due from petitioner. However petition averments disclose that already he has filed suit in O.S.No.527/2021 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC,

¶65

¶66

Ballary. Petitioner claimed that he has maintained all the records, all the profits and the interest which respondent No.2 is entitled, is paid by him. Petitioner has also contended that he has paid more than 30 lakh for the cancer treatment of the wife of respondent No.2 and for construction of the house of respondent No.2 he has also furnished raw materials and all the support.

¶67

From perusal of the petition averments and documents placed on record it is evident that the dispute between petitioner and respondent No.2 is purely of civil in nature. Already he has initiated civil proceedings against the petitioner.

¶68

Even though at para-11 of the complaint, respondent No.2-complainant has pleaded that he approached the jurisdictional police with complaint but the concerned police have refused to entertain it and therefore, he approached the Court and sought for reference under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. However, respondent No.2 has not produced copy of the complaint given to the police along with private complaint filed

¶69

¶70

before the Court. Admittedly, after the so called refusal by the police to entertain his complaint, respondent No.2 has not approached the Superintendent of Police and sent the complaint to him by post along with proof of the refusal of concerned jurisdictional police to entertain his complaint. Admittedly, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava’s along with complaint, respondent No.2-complainant has not filed affidavit stating that the he has complied with said directions. Only after exhausting the remedy available for under the Criminal Procedure Code as per the 154 of Cr.P.C., and proof of the same with necessary affidavit, the Court is required to refer the matter to the police for investigation or else it is required to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. The trial Court without application of mind has blindly referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶71

Now the question would be whether the

¶72

continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court or the respondent No.2 may be permitted

¶73

10 -

¶74

to continue the private complaint. As discussed earlier, the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 appears to be purely of civil in nature. Already respondent No.2 has filed a suit seeking relief in respect of his civil rights. This complaint appears to be attempt made by respondent No.2 by way of arms twisting the petitioner to agree to his terms. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court and as such, it is not a fit case to refer the matter back to the trial Court for trial as a private complaint.

¶75

In the decision relied upon by petitioner, based on the decision of Hon’ble supreme court in Priyanka Srivastava’s case criminal proceedings were quashed.

¶76

So far as Neeharika’s case referred to supra relied upon by the respondent No.2, the Hon’ble supreme court has listed the circumstances when interference could be made under Section 482 Cr.P.C. So far as criminal petition No.201215/2020, having regard to the facts and circumstances therein, the co-ordinate bench of this court

¶77

11 -

¶78

though quashed the criminal proceedings, remanded the case permitting complainant to prosecute the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. However, as discussed earlier, no purpose would serve by permitting the complainant to prosecute the complaint and therefore it is not applicable to the case on hand.

¶79

In the result the petitioner succeeds and

¶80

accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

The Criminal petition is allowed.

¶83

The impugned proceedings in P.C.No.244/ 2021 pending before Principal Civil Judge, Hosapete, Ballari, insofar as petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed.

¶84

In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶85

Sd/-

¶86

JUDGE

¶87

K Ravindra S/O Kakarla Ramayya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Ravindra S/O Kakarla Ramayya 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

Auto Shankar S/O. Laxmappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Auto Shankar Alias Shankar Lingappa S/O Lachamappa Alias Laxmappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Auto Shankar S/O Lakshmappa Alias Lachamappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Renuka W/O Gangappa Naikar Vs Sri. Gangappa Bhimmappa Naikar

Subhas S/O Ashok Ghodake Vs the State of Karnataka

A.R.Patil Vs State of Karnataka