Allowed

K Suresh Babu S/O Nageshwar Rao v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2022CRL.P/103751/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings under Section 20 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. The court held that the petitioner, who hired guards for his industry, was not engaged in the business of a private security agency, rendering the charge sheet without substance.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.138/2019 are quashed.

K Suresh Babu S/O Nageshwar Rao Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 103751 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103751 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103705 OF 2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

K SURESH BABU S/O NAGESHWAR RAO AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF L N OILS R/O. H.NO. 03 PATIL LAYOUT, KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD DIST. DHARWAD.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRASHANT S HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

STATION HOUSE OFFICER INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION POLICE STATION INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION CENTRAL OFFICE BENGALURU-580056.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 30.01.2019 BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT DHARWAD IN CC NO. 138/2019 AND THE CHARGE SHEET FILED ON 21.01.2019 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE PRIVATE SECURITY AGAENCIES (REGULATION ) ACT, 2005 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND C RESPECTIVELY.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

CRL.P No. 103751 of 2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Private Security Agency (Regulation) Act, 2005, alleging that the petitioner has employed Private security for the protection and guarding of the industry without obtaining licence under provisions of the Act. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶25

the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the petitioner, since the petitioner is not engaged in the business of providing private security agency.

¶26

On the other hand learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the charge sheet material discloses that the petitioner was engaged in business of Private Security Agency without obtaining licence under Act. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence and same does not warrant any interference.

¶27

I have examined the submission made by the

¶28

learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

¶30

CRL.P No. 103751 of 2022

¶31

Private Security Agency (Regulation) Act, 2005, is an enactment to provide for the regulation of private security agencies and for matters connected there with or incidental there to. In the instant case, the petitioner is not engaged in the business of Private Security Agency and petitioner had only engaged security personal for guarding his industry. Hence, in the absence of any material that the petitioner was engaged in the business of Private Security Agency, the charge sheet filed for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act, is without any substance. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The criminal petition is allowed.

¶34

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.138/2019, pending on the file of the 1^St Additional civil Judge, JMFC Court is hereby quashed.

¶35

SD/- JUDGE

¶36

K Suresh Babu S/O Nageshwar Rao v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Suresh Babu S/O Nageshwar Rao 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Mahantesh Mariyappa Hadimani Vs the Divisional Controller

H.T. Indrachala S/O Late Sanna Thimmappa Vs the Management of Nekrtc

Shri. Mabusab @ Mehaboobsab S/O Razaksab Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa Balappa Pudakalkatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Thyagarajan Venkatesan Vs the State of Karnataka

Hulgesh Alias Hulagappa S/O Parasappa Vs the State of Karnataka