Criminal Petition filed to quash proceedings against an employee accused of cheating and chit fund offenses. Court allowed petition and quashed First Information Report-based proceedings as mere employment did not establish guilt.
Quashed proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.414/2015 relating to accused No.9; directed police to defreeze petitioner's bank account.
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 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1399/2017
BETWEEN:
UMA M D/O LATE N. MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, EARLIER WORKING AS OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE CUM ACCOUNT AT UNIPAY2 MARKETING PVT. LTD., R.T. NAGAR BRANCH, BANGALORE-560 032, RESIDING AT NO.11, 3RD CROSS, KAVERI NAGAR, R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 032.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.H. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESIDING AT NO.2800, 11TH MAIN ROAD, 'D' BLOCK,
2
RAJAJINAGARA 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST HER IN SPL.C.C.NO.414/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 5 OF PRIZE CHIT MONEY CIRCULATION SCHEME (BANNING ACT) 1978, AND SECTION 9 OF KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST DEPOSITOR'S ACT, 2004, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AND QUASH SO FOR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Prize Chit Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest Depositor's Act, 2004 and Section 58B, 5A of the Reserve Bank of India Act.
3
Marketing Private Limited Company and became the CEO of the said Company. Accused No.1 along with other accused got registered the Company in Chennai and also opened its branch office at Bangalore and invited depositors from the public under various schemes launched by it. It is further alleged that these schemes were shown to the public that the money invested by them would be doubled for which large number of depositors invested total sum of Rs.2,03,29,500/- and the accused in turn returned sum of Rs.22,15,262/-towards profit on the investment made by the depositors and did not return the balance amount of Rs.1,80,94,238/- and have cheated the depositors.
that petitioner was arraigned as an accused No.11 in Crime No.413/2015, making the very same allegation made in the charge sheet herein and the charge sheet filed in the aforesaid crime has been quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1400/2017 holding that the petitioner-accused is only working in accused
4
No.1 company and that itself is not sufficient to hold that she had participated in the alleged act of cheating by the Company. Hence, he submits that in the absence of any specific allegation that the petitioner-accused had connived with other accused in cheating the defacto-complainant, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is without any substance.
5
No.413/2015 for the aforesaid offences was impugned in Crl.P.No.1400/2017. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 10.3.2021 quashed the proceeding impugned therein stating that the petitioner-accused No.9 herein, who was arraigned as accused No.11 therein, was only an employee working in the accused No.1 Company and that itself is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner-accused No.9 participated in the alleged act of cheating by the Company against the depositors.
the charge sheet that the petitioner-accused had connived with other accused in cheating the investors of the accused No.1 company, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate in the absence of any corroborative material is one without any substance. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of law, since the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak, Accordingly, I pass the following:
6
ORDER
i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.414/2015 pending on the file of the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore in so far it relates to accused No.9 is hereby quashed.
iii) impugned proceedings having been quashed against the petitioner-herein, the Police is directed to defreeze the bank
account of the petitioner-accused.
Sd/JUDGE
HR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether cognizance taken by the Magistrate under Section 420 IPC and other provisions against the petitioner, who was only an employee, warrants quashing of proceedings under Article 226?
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings without specific allegation of participation or connivance amounts to an abuse of process of law?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Uma M d/o Late N. Muniswamy
State of Karnataka by C I D
Smt Shobha D S
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court