Allowed

Mr P S Ayub @ Bomanahalli Babu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2022WP/50816/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition challenging the quashability of an FIR and charge sheet, the High Court of Karnataka directed the quashing of the complaint against the Petitioner. The Court held that as the Petitioner had ceased to be a Director of the accused company prior to the alleged theft, the FIR and charge sheet were without substance. Liberty was reserved for proceedings against the company.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned FIR in Crime No.238/2017 is quashed. Liberty is reserved for the State to proceed against the company.

Mr P S Ayub @ Bomanahalli Babu Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.50816 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR.P.S.AYUB @ BOMANAHALLI BABU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O MR.SYED BASHA, R/A T-3, MARIAMMA APARTMENTS, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005 ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR.P, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶11

BY BILICHODU POLICE STATION, JAGALUR CIRCLE, REPRESENTED BY

¶12

HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001

¶13

BASAVARAJAPPA, S/O JOGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT BILICHODU VILLAGE, JAGALURU TALUK, DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA-577553

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J, HCGP FOR R1, R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASHING THE REGISTRATION OF FIR DATED 06.12.2017 IN CRIME NO.238/2017 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 457 AND 380 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION PENDING THEREON AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER THEREIN (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-Q) TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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.

¶21

The Police registered the FIR in Crime No.238/2017 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 and 380 of IPC. Taking exception to the same this petition is filed.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ceased to be the Director of the company on 01.01.2016 which is evident from Form No.DIR-11 issued by the Registrar of Companies. Hence he submits that the alleged incident has taken place after the petitioner ceased to be Director of the said company and as such the FIR registered against the petitioner is impermissible.

¶24

Learned HCGP submits that the petitioner being the Director of the company has received stolen property from the accused and as such has committed the offence alleged against him and at this stage, the FIR registered against the petitioner and the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶25

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

¶26

To substantiate the claim that the petitioner ceased to be the Director of Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. to

¶27

¶28

which the stolen property was sold, Form No.DIR-11 issued by the Registrar of Companies is produced. The said document indicates that the petitioner/accused ceased to be the Director of the company with effect from 01.01.2016. The alleged incident has taken place after the petitioner ceased to be the Director of the company in question which is alleged to have received the stolen property.

¶29

The resignation of the petitioner as Director

¶30

of the Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. is evident from Form No.DIR-11. The same has remained uncontroverted and not disputed by the respondents. In the absence of any dispute to the said document, it is implied that the petitioner ceased to 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.

¶31

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) The Writ petition is allowed.

¶35

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.238/2017 is quashed.

¶36

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.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Mr P S Ayub @ Bomanahalli Babu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr P S Ayub @ Bomanahalli Babu v. 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

Sri. N Velu Vs J Hemanth Krishna

Prajwal P Shenava Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Yousuff Shariff @ D Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Bachegowda H M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Amit Rathore Vs Ms. Kiranashree Electricals