Dismissed

Ramesh S/O Venkappa Bonageri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2023CRL.P/101384/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a successive Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for possessing unaccounted cash. The Court held that urgent seizure at wee hours obtained subsequent Magistrate permission substantially complied with the law and dismissed the petition as filed at the evidence stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

Ramesh S/O Venkappa Bonageri Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.P NO.101384/2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 101384 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAMESH S/O. VENKAPPA BONAGERI, AGED: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: #2347, SAI GARDEN BHAVANI NAGAR, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD CITY-580021.

¶10

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADV.)

¶13

Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2023.09.22 15:20:28 +0530

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPT. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DIST: DHARWAD- 580011.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING THIS COURT TO, ALLOW THE PETITION AND FURTHER QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 1353/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I JMFC COURT HUBBALLI REGISTERED ON THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, BASED ON THE FIR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 98 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.

¶19

CRL.P NO.101384/2023

¶20

¶21

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 31.08.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This is a successive petition filed by the petitioner,

¶24

who is arraigned as accused, with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1353/2023 on the file of I JMFC, Hubballi for the offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

¶25

In support of his petition, petitioner has contended that the registration of crime against him is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to abuse of process of law and court and calls for interference by this Court. Even if the entire allegations made in the charge sheet are taken as true, the same will not constitute the offence alleged. Since the offence alleged is non-cognizable, before registering the case, the investigation officer is required to secure permission of the Trial Court. Only after visiting the spot, seizing the amount, the investigating officer has submitted

¶26

CRL.P NO.101384/2023

¶27

¶28

requisition at 6.40 a.m. and taken permission, which is not a speaking order. Without conducting proper investigation, charge sheet is filed and it is liable to be quashed and prays to allow the petition.

¶29

In support of the petition, the learned counsel for

¶30

the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

¶31

i. State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others (Bhajan Lal)¹

¶32

ii. B.S.Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka (Ramesh)2

¶33

iii. Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) Vs. The State of Karnataka (Vaggeppa)3

¶34

iv. Sarvesh Vs. State of Karnataka (Sarvesh)4

¶35

v. Dr.M.K.Pushpitha Vs.State of Karnataka (Pushpitha)5

¶36

vi. Sri.Sandeep S.C. Vs. The State of Karnataka (Sandeep)6

¶37

1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

¶38

2 Crl.P.No.1678/2015 DD 18.10.2016

¶39

3 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶40

4 Crl.P.No.100653/2020 c/w Crl.P.No.100979/2020 DD 10.09.2020

¶41

CRL.P NO.101384/2023

¶42

¶43

vii. Sri.Siddharth H.M. Vs. The State of Karnataka (Siddharth)7

¶44

viii. Umesh Vs. The State of Karnataka (Umesh)8

¶45

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶46

submitted oral objections stating that on 03.03.2023 at 11.30 p.m., the investigating officer received credible information that the petitioner is in possession of unaccounted cash in his house. Immediately he brought the said fact to the notice of his higher officer and along with two independent panchas and staff proceeded to the spot. The petitioner was found in the house. He was issued with a notice and search was conducted. Currency worth Rs.3 crores was found. It was counted with the help of counting machine available in the said house. Petitioner did not have any plausible explanation for keeping such huge amount of cash without maintaining any records. Therefore, they were

¶47

5 WP No.10241/2021 DD 04.08.2021

¶48

6 Crl.P.No.2065/2023 c/w Crl.P.No.2173/2023 & Crl.P.No.2180/2023 DD 14.03.2023

¶49

7 Crl.P.No.140/2017 c/w Clr.P.No.2960/2017 DD 19.11.2019

¶50

8 Crl.P.No.101726/2014 DD 20.01.2015

¶51

CRL.P NO.101384/2023

¶52

¶53

seized through mahazar. The seized cash and the petitioner

¶54

were brought to the police station.

¶55

4.1. Immediately at the first available opportunity, the investigating officer submitted requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission to register the case and investigate the matter. The jurisdictional Magistrate has passed order granting permission to register FIR and investigate the matter. Accordingly, case was registered and investigation was taken up. Since the petitioner did not have any plausible explanation for processing unaccounted cash, the investigating officer after securing permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate has transferred the cash to Additional Director (Investigation Division), Income Tax Department, Hubballi. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act. Already petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at crime stage is rejected by the Hon’ble Court and

¶56

this is successive petition is not maintainable. Charge sheet

¶57

CRL.P NO.101384/2023

¶58

¶59

makes out a strong prima facie case and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶60

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶61

Thus on 03.03.2023, at 11.30 p.m., the

¶62

investigation officer received credible information about petitioner possessing unaccounted cash in the house of petitioner. Looking to the urgency of the matter and the fact that the information was received at wee hour, he could not secure prior permission of the Magistrate. However, after informing his higher officers, and securing two independent witnesses, the investigating officer along with his staff and panchas reached the house of petitioner and after serving notice, conducted search and found currency note in a total sum of Rs.3 crores and the same was seized through mahazar. Petitioner does not dispute the fact that huge cash

¶63

in a sum of Rs.3 crores were found in his house. In fact, his justification for keeping the unaccounted cash in his house is

¶64

CRL.P NO.101384/2023

¶65

¶66

that every month he is having business of Rs.1-2 crores and normally he keeps cash in his house.

¶67

After seizure of the cash found in the house of petitioner, the investigating office has returned to the police station and submitted requisition at 6.40 a.m. of 04.03.2023 and secured permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate to register the case and conduct investigation. Looking to the urgency of the matter, there is substantial compliance of Section 155 Cr.P.C. Had the investigation officer waited till he secure the permission of the Magistrate and thereafter proceed to raid the premises, the possibility of petitioner removing the cash i.e., destroying the evidence cannot be ruled out. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is substantial compliance of Section 155 Cr.P.C. Having regard to these facts, the decisions relied upon by the petitioner have no application to the present case.

¶68

The earlier petition filed by the petitioner seeking the same relief was rejected at the crime stage. After

¶69

CRL.P NO.101384/2023

¶70

¶71

completing the investigation, charge sheet is filed under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act and therefore now the allegations against the petitioner are fortified. Such being the case, absolutely there is no justification for the petitioner once again seek quashing of the criminal proceedings against him. It is for the petitioner to justify keeping such huge amount of cash in his house at the trial.

¶72

Thus, from the above discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner

¶75

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

KGK CT-AK

Ramesh S/O Venkappa Bonageri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O Venkappa Bonageri 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrishail Vs State of Karnataka

Ningappa S/O Hanamanthappa Navalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakshmavva W/O Ramappa Chigari Vs the State of Karnataka

Jamakhandi Hanumanthappa @ J. Hanamanhappa S/O Ramappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sangayya S/O. Sharanayya Kadabalakatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Husenasab S/O Murtujsab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka