Allowed

Laxman M. Dappinnavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2022CRL.P/100875/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC filed to quash FIR alleging offences under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, and 471 IPC for transferring and refunding funds. Court held that since the amount was refunded before FIR was lodged, no misappropriation occurred and FIR was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; impugned FIR registered by Joida P.S. quashed.

Laxman M. Dappinnavar Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100875 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100875 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LAXMAN M. DAPPINNAVAR AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, R/O. MUDALAGI-591312, TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶13

Digitally signed by SUJATASUBHASH PAMMAR Location: High court ofKarnataka, Dharwad Bench,Dharwad Date: 2022.11.23 10:40:31 - 0800

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY POLICE INSPECTOR JOIDA POLICE STATION JOIDA (SUPA)-581186 TQ. JOIDA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR JOIDA TALUKA, JOIDA (SUPA)-581186 TQ. JOIDA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI V S KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 100875 of 2022

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE (HEREIN AFTER IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS IPC) PURSUANT TO REGISTRATION OF FIR IN JOIDA P.S. CRIME NO.01/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND D RESPECTIVELY.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

FIR was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC alleging that the petitioner has transferred an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- from the account of complainant to his personal account and on the next day refunded the said amount to the account of the complainant. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶25

submits that in the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the offence of misappropriation and forgery, the registration of FIR for the aforesaid offences is without any substance. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Pratap Narain

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 100875 of 2022

¶28

Singh and another –vs- State of U.P reported in (1991) 2 SCC 623 at page-27.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the petitioner having transferred the amount belonging to the complainant to his personal account has committed the aforesaid offences. Hence, the registration of FIR does not warrant any interference.

¶30

I have examined the submissions of the learned

¶31

counsel appearing for the parties.

¶32

It is undisputed that the petitioner has refunded the amount, which was transferred to his account, to the complainant. The FIR was lodged after six months from the date on which the amount was transferred to the personal account of the petitioner, by which time the petitioner has already refunded the entire amount to the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Pratap Narain Singh (supra) has held that to constitute the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC, whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property, in his

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 100875 of 2022

¶35

capacity of a public servant dishonestly misappropriated or converted that property to his own use that property shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. In the present, as on the date when the FIR was lodged, the petitioner had refunded the entire amount to the complainant, there was no misappropriation of the property which was entrusted to the petitioner – accused. In the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the offence of forgery, the registration of FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC is also one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶38

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.1/2022 registered by the Joida P.S. is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BKM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 124

Laxman M. Dappinnavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman M. Dappinnavar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Nagaveni D/O Mahantayya Matapati Vs the Managing Director

Best School of Nursing Vs the Registrar

Sri Veerarani Kittur Chennamma School of Nursing Vs the Registrar

Mr Vikram S Kasbekar Vs State of Karnataka

Hero Moto Corp Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Kamala W/O Devendrappa Hombal Vs the State of Karnataka