Allowed

P Bhaskar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2022CRL.P/4277/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition to quash a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on a coordinate bench judgment which held that police cannot register FIRs for money lending violations without first following the statutory procedure requiring debtor deposit in court.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.12032/2022 are quashed qua the petitioners.

P Bhaskar Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 4277 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4277 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

P.BHASKAR S/O LATE P.PANCHAKSHARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶10

DILIP SARVANA

¶11

S/O P.BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶12

BOTH R/AT NO. 212, “SARAVANA NIVASA” #29^th MAIN ROAD 12^th CROSS, B.T.M., 2^nd STAGE BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI JAIRAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER OF HIGH COURT BENGALURU.

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 4277 of 2022

¶20

R.JAYARAM BHAT

¶21

S/O LATE I.G.RAMACHANDRA

¶22

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT #666A, 14^th CROSS 14^th MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 2^nd PHASE, BENGALURU CITY – 560 078.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.12032/2022 IN (CR.NO.46/2022) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3 AND 4 OF KPCEL ACT AND OFFENCE P/U/S 342, 427, 417, 420, 323, 504, 506, 384 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE - J.P.NAGAR POLICE ON THE COMPLAINT OF 2ND RESPONDENT/ONE SRI I.R.JAYARAM BHAT, S/O LATE I.G.RAMACHANDRA, BENGALURU CITY, NOW WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri Jairaj G., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.102117/2015

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 4277 of 2022

¶32

disposed on 18.12.2015 , wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench interpreting the same provisions under which the petitioners are now been charged in the subject petition.

¶33

Though the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently defend the proceedings initiated against the petitioners but she is not in a position to dispute the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment afore-quoted.

¶34

The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.102117/2015 disposed on 18.12.2015, reads as

¶35

follows:

¶36

“2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under 482 of Criminal Procedure Code requesting the Court to quash the proceedings registered in Crime No.81/2015 for the alleged offences under Sections 38 & 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Sections 3 & 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 read with Section 420 of IPC, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Court, Yelburga, Koppal District.

¶37

3. Brief facts of the case as per the complaint averments are that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner lent loan to the people and loan was collecting exorbitant rate of interest from them. The petitioner is a farmer. Since many years and as per the allegations made, some people borrowed the amount from the petitioner. He obtained the order for search warrant from the JMFC Court. On the basis of the information, raid was conducted by the 2^nd respondent, panchas went to the house of the petitioner along with

¶38

¶39

CRL.P No. 4277 of 2022

¶40

his staff. If is further alleged in the complaint that the 2^nd respondent found some e-stamp, papers, hand loan papers, which belonged to different persons. On enquiry, it is alleged that the 2^nd respondent came to know that the petitioner had been doing money lending business without obtaining valid licence and apart from this, he has been charging exorbitant interest. On the basis of the said complaint case has been registered against the present petitioner.

¶41

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶42

5. Counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the mandatory procedure is not followed in this case under the provisions of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. It is his submission, that the debtor has to deposit the amount before the Court along with interest and he has to bring it to the notice of the Court about the allegations as against the present petitioner and he is not supposed to directly approach the police nor the police can register the case in the manner that is done in this case. Hence, the counsel submitted that the procedure contemplated under Section 5 of the said Act is not followed in this case. He also submitted that under similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court has already quashed the proceedings. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition.

¶43

6. Learned Government Pleader made the submission that this Court has already taken a decision in other similar matters. Hence, he submitted that he is leaving the matter to the Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶44

7. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition and also the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint the offences alleged are under Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004, i.e., under Sections 3 and 4. When that is so, the procedure contemplated under Section 5 of the said Act is to be followed. Section 5 of the said Act reads as follows:

¶45

¶46

CRL.P No. 4277 of 2022

¶47

“5. Deposit of money and presentation of petition to court and the procedure thereof.

¶48

(1) A debtor may deposit the money due in respect of loan received by him from any person together with interest at the rate fixed by the State Government under section 28 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 into the Court having jurisdiction, along with a petition to record that the amount deposited is in full or part, satisfaction of the loan including the interest therefor, as the case may be.

¶49

(2) The Court shall, on receipt of a petition under sub-section (1), refer a copy of the petition to the person mentioned in the petition, directing him to give his replies within a period of fifteen days as may be granted by the Court. The Court may, after due inquiry and after considering the versions of both the parties, pass orders recording the satisfaction of the loan and interest therefor in full or in part, as the case may be"

¶50

8. This Court has already disposed of similar petitions referring to the said provisions. Looking to these aspect of the matter, registration of the complaint by respondent NO.2 directly in the police station without approaching the appropriate Court itself is illegal and it is not maintainable in law. Petitioner has made out a case. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Yelburga P.S. Crime No.81/2015 pending on the file of Pri. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Yelburga, Koppal District, is hereby quashed.

¶51

However, liberty is reserved to the police to proceed in accordance with law under the provisions of the Act and to take appropriate action in the matter.”

¶52

¶53

CRL.P No. 4277 of 2022

¶54

In the light of the afore-quoted order and the submissions

¶55

made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶58

ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.12032/2022 pending before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed, qua the petitioners.

¶59

I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed, as a consequence.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

¶62

nvj

P Bhaskar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Bhaskar 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

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivas Bhat Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Salvador Fernandes Vs the State of Karnataka

Chaluvaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Joe Abraham Mathews Vs State by

Almas Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka