The Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet against a petitioner accused of receiving stolen gold jewellery through a company. The court quashed it because the petitioner ceased to be the director on the date of the alleged incident.
The impugned FIR in Crime No.159/2017 was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.4183/2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN :
P.S.AYUB @ BOMMNAHALLI BABU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O MR.SYED BASHA R/AT T-3, MARIAMMA APARTMENTS FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
(BY SRI.ROHITH B.J., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1646/2019 (CRIME NO.159/2017) PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ACMM, COURT BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE–H, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition, the first information report was lodged alleging that the gold jewelleries belonging to the complainant were stolen by the accused and the said accused sold the same to the Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd in various branches.
3
No.159/2017 and after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner alleging that he is the Director of the Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd and as such has committed an offence punishable under Sections 454, 380, 411 and 413 of IPC. Taking exception to the same this petition is filed.
4
submitted against the petitioner does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.
5
be the Director of the company in question as on the date of the alleged incident. Hence, in the absence of any corroborative material that the petitioner as director of the company in question has received the stolen property, the registration of FIR and also the filing of charge sheet is without any substance.
8. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
iii) Liberty is reserved with the respondent State to proceed against the company which is alleged to have received the stolen property in accordance with law, if so advised.
JUDGE
AKC
Sd/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing of FIR is permitted when the accused ceased to be a director of the company on the date of the alleged crime.
Whether the lack of evidence regarding the accused receiving stolen property warrants quashing of the FIR and charge sheet.
Whether Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings against a former company director.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
P.S.AYUB @ BOMMNAHALLI BABU
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE WEST DIVISION
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VIJAYANAGAR
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
