Dismissed

Smt Sannamma v. the State by the Inspector of Police

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2022WP/24005/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court rejected the divorce petitioners' plea to quash an FIR for criminal breach of trust. The court held that since the matter was under investigation and involved disputed facts, the petition was premature and devoid of merit under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

FIR registered against petitioners was not quashed; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Smt Sannamma Vs the State by the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 24005 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 24005 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SANNAMMA W/O. LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS VICE-PRESIDENT HAROKOPPA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HAROKOPPA VILLAGE - 571 511 CHANAPATNA TALUK

¶9

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶10

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI SIDDE GOWDA P. S/O. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS SECRETARY/EXECUTIVE OFFICER HAROKOPPA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HAROKOPPA VILLAGE - 571 511 CHANAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AKKUR POLICE STATION VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 138.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 24005 of 2017

¶18

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA - 571 511.

¶19

SRI PUTTASWAMY S/O. MARAIAHNA MADEGOWDA MAJOR IN AGE, DIRECTOR HAROKOPPA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HAROKOPPA VILLAGE - 571 511 CHANAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI K. RAHUL RAI, HCGP., FOR R.1 & R.2; SRI S. PRAKASH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE F.I.R. REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.71/2017 DATED 21.05.2017 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

On 21.05.2017, the Director of Harokoppa Milk Producers

¶26

Co-operative Society lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police against the petitioners herein for misappropriation of funds. Based on the said complaint, the first respondent has registered a FIR against the petitioners herein for commission of the offences under Sections 406,

¶27

¶28

WP No. 24005 of 2017

¶29

409 read with Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by the petitioners herein.

¶30

The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the Vice President of Harokoppa Milk Co-operative Society and the second petitioner is its Secretary and as the second petitioner was not paid arrears of his salary, a cheque was issued in his favour and he has withdrawn the money and the petitioners are not guilty of any of the offences as alleged. It is further submitted that when the prosecution is initiated for violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). Sanction is required as contemplated under Section 111 of the said Act and the same has not been obtained in the instant case. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the FIR registered against the petitioners be quashed.

¶31

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶32

for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that FIR has not been registered for violating of the provisions of the Act, but for

¶33

¶34

WP No. 24005 of 2017

¶35

the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 read

¶36

with Section 34 of IPC and for that, previous sanction is not required. It is further submitted that the matter is still under investigation and the charge sheet is yet to be filed and upon investigation if the Authorities find that the petitioners are not guilty of the offences as alleged, then no charge sheet will be filed against them. It is submitted that the petition is premature and it involves disputed question of fact and for that reason, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

¶37

The complaint alleges misappropriation of funds and criminal breach of trust and based on which, an FIR has been registered against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 read with Section 34 of IPC. The FIR does not mention violation of any of the provisions of the Act. The case is still at the stage of investigation. To proceed against the petitioners for the offences under the provisions of IPC, the sanction as contemplated under the Act is not required. Whether the petitioners are guilty of the offences alleged are not is a matter of investigation and trial. The disputed questions of

¶38

¶39

WP No. 24005 of 2017

¶40

fact cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its power

¶41

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Prima-facie there is no illegality in registering of the FIR upon the complaint given by respondent No.3.

¶42

For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is

¶43

devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed .

¶44

In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any do not survive for consideration and the same are hereby disposed of.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

VMB

Smt Sannamma v. the State by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sannamma v. the State by the Inspector of Police

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

M/S. Prolitus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Solize India Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Sri G N Ramanujam Vs Sri Malavalli Chikkanna Charities

Sri Harshavardhan M Vs Smt R Shobha

M/S Sreedevi Infra Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs P N Venkataranayana Babu

Kirti K Mehta Vs State of Karnataka by

Daniel Norbert Babalaski Vs the State of Karnataka