Allowed

Sri Sankar Yaligar Alias Shankar Yaligar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023CRL.P/104064/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the proceedings in a criminal case and the FIR registered under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. The court held that the FIR was registered without authority since a Regulator complaint was not filed as mandated by Section 27 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in C.C. No.1155/2021 and the proceedings thereunder stands quashed.

Sri Sankar Yaligar Alias Shankar Yaligar Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12081 CRL.P No. 104064 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104064 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SANKAR YALIGAR @ SHANKAR YALIGAR, S/O. K. SIDDAPPA YALIGAR, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. ANJNEYA BADAVANE, NEAR SRP CARNMENT SCHOOL, DAVANAGERI, DIST. DAVANAGERI-577001.

¶10

KUMARI SUSHMA D/O. SHANKAR YALIGAR, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. ANJNEYA BADAVANE, NEAR SRP CARNMENT SCHOOL, DAVANAGERI,

¶11

DIST. DAVANAGERI-577001.

¶12

… PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. K H BAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶16

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Date: 2023.10.11 11:29:04 +0530

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011, THROUGH PSI KUSHTAGI PS.

¶18

KUMARI SUNANDA SHARANAPPA GUDADURA, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, R/O. HANAMAHAL VILLAGE, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-587125.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO. 1155/2021 (KUSHTAGI PS CRIME NO 105/2021) FOR OFFENCE U/S 120B, 406, 420, R/W 34 OF IPC DATED 002.07.2021 AND ISSUE SUMMONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2 AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 120B 406, 420, R/W 34 OF IPC AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS TO PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 ARE CONCERNED DATED 18.08.2021 IN CC NO. 1155/2021 (KUSHTAGI PS CRIME NO. 105/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUSHTAGI.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12081 CRL.P No. 104064 of 2022

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No.1155/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar S/o. Gadeppa Khot & another Vs. the State of Karnataka & others in W.P. 102888/2022, disposed off on 19.10.2022, wherein the identical issues have been raised and have been answered in favour of the petitioners therein. This Court has held as follows:

¶28

“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.

¶29

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Section 27 of the Act specifies

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12081 CRL.P No. 104064 of 2022

¶32

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

¶33

3. The learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State 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.

¶34

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

¶35

5. 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.

¶36

6. 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.

¶37

7. 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:

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12081 CRL.P No. 104064 of 2022

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Writ Petition is allowed.

¶42

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.”

¶43

Learned AGA would not dispute the position of law as

¶44

is observed in the aforesaid case referred supra.

¶45

Therefore, for the reasons rendered therein, the

¶46

subject petition also deserves to be succeed.

¶47

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶50

(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.1155/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC stands quashed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

VNP

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Sankar Yaligar Alias Shankar Yaligar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sankar Yaligar Alias Shankar Yaligar 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

Shri Sushil Pandurang Mantri Vs the State of Karnataka by

Khaja Ammenuddin S/O Ismailsab Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Shamshuddinimamhussain Gorikhan Vs Smt. Bakula Krishnaji Dubale

H Manjunatha S/O H Ramanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Gangappa Shankarappa Anathapur Vs Assistant Commissioner Bailhongal

Aslam Shaik Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka