Allowed

Santosh Kumar S/O Gadeppa Khot v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2022WP/102888/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Dharwad Bench quashed the FIR registered by Chikkodi Police for offences punishable under Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 against the petitioners. The court held that the FIR was invalid under Section 27 which mandates a complaint by the Regulator for cognizance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR in Crime No.257/2021 filed by Chikkodi Police Station, insofar as it relates to the petitioners (accused Nos. 2 and 3), is hereby quashed.

Santosh Kumar S/O Gadeppa Khot Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 102888 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 102888 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SANTOSH KUMAR S/O GADEPPA KHOT AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER R/O. EXAMBA TQ. CHIKKODI DIST. BELAGAVI

¶10

HARIAH S/O GOVIND INAMDAR AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KERUR TQ. CHIKKODI DIST. BELAGAVI

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD THROUGH CHIKKODI CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHIKODI PS, TALUK. CHIKKODI DIST. BELAGAVI

¶15

THE CENTRAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (CID POLICE) BENGALURU 560001

¶16

YAMANAPPA S/O MUTTAPPA MANG, POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, CHIKKODI PS, TALUK. CHIKKODI DIST. BELAGAVI

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CHIKKODI POLICE CRIME NO.257/2021 DATED 02/12/2021 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - POLICE FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420, 511 IPC AND SECTION 21(1) (2) OF THE BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT 2019 VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B RESPECTIVELY.

¶20

¶21

WP No. 102888 of 2022

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The FIR is registered in Crime No.257/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 of IPC and Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short) alleging that accused Nos.1 and 4 induced the people to deposit money stating that the amount invested will be doubled and the said amount which is invested by the public have been utilized for own purpose and for other purposes and during the course of investigation, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, as they were collecting the money from the public as agents of accused No.1. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Section 27 of the Act specifies that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under that section except upon a complaint made by the Regulator. He further submits that the registration of the FIR for the offences

¶26

¶27

WP No. 102888 of 2022

¶28

punishable under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act is one without authority of law.

¶29

The learned HCGP appearing for the respondentState submits that the petitioners having collected money illegally from the people, committed the aforesaid offences and the Police have registered the FIR and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶30

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

Section 7 of the Act, specifies that appropriate government shall, by notification, appoint one or more officers not below the rank of Secretary to that government, as the competent authority for the purpose of this Act. Section 8 specifies that the appropriate government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute one or more Courts known as the Designated Courts for such area or areas to deal with the matters to which the provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act applies. Section 27 of the Act specifies that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under that section except upon a complaint made by the Regulator.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 102888 of 2022

¶34

A conjoint reading of this provision indicates that the government shall first appoint a Regulator and thereafter designate a Court to deal with the matters to which the provisions of this Act apply and the Designated Court can take cognizance only on a complaint in writing made by the Regulator.

¶35

In the instant case, the Regulator has not filed a complaint before the Designated Court so as to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act. However, the Police have registered the FIR for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the registration of the FIR for the aforesaid offences is one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Writ Petition is allowed.

¶38

The impugned FIR in Crime No.257/2021 filed by the Chikkodi Police Station insofar it relates to accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

RSH

Santosh Kumar S/O Gadeppa Khot v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar S/O Gadeppa Khot 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhash S/O. Rangappa Kolli Vs the Deputy Director of

Suresh S/O Ishwarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhima Kallappa Waghmode Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagangouda S/O Parvatgouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahabaleshwar S/O.Gopal Gaddemane, Vs the Branch Manager, Vikas Urban Co-Operative Bank

The State of Karnataka Vs the Land Tribunal