Allowed

B M Chandrashekar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023CRL.P/2158/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed proceedings against a notary accused of selling franked stamp papers illegally, holding that taking cognizance based on a police final report violated Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which mandates a specific complaint procedure.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.21505/2016 affecting accused No.4 are quashed.

B M Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36852 CRL.P No. 2158 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2158 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

B M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE B M MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO 5, CANARA BANK COLONY JAYANAGAR III BLOCK EAST BENGALURU-560 011.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VASANTH MADHAVA S. ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 038 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BENGALURU-01.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SMT. K P YASHODA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.3 IN C.C.NO.21505/2016 (CR.NO.484/2015) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.120-B, 420, 468, 471, 511 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC R/W SEC.59, 61, 62, 63, 63-A OF KARNATAKA STAMP ACT AND SEC.4,5,6 OF THE KARNATAKA STAMP (FRANKING IMPRESSION OF STAMPS) RULES, 2000 ON THE FILES OF 41st ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A).

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36852 CRL.P No. 2158 of 2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner-accused No.4 is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 511 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under sections 61, 62, 63, 63(A) of Karnataka Stamps Act 1957 and 4,5,6 of the Karnataka Stamp [Franking Impression of Stamps] Rules, 2000.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that, on receiving credible information that Rs.2 blank stamp papers duly franked at various offices of the Sub-Registrar and duly signed by notaries were used and sold to the public against the Rules and thereby playing fraud against the public and cheated the Government, a raid was conducted in Koramangala BDA Complex Shop No.58 standing in the name of Srinidhi Enterprises wherein accused Nos. 1 and 2 were apprehended and rubber stamp/seal of the accused Nos.4 and 5 were recovered together with three CPU’s.

¶23

The accused Nos.1 and 2 were remanded to the Judicial Custody and all the materials seized were subjected to PR No.161/2015. Further it is alleged that accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 illegally joined hands and got the stamp papers franked from different Sub-Registrars’ office on stamp paper of Rs.10, 20, 50, 100 on back date stamp papers and used it in black market causing loss to the Government.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:36852 CRL.P No. 2158 of 2022

¶26

It is further alleged that the accused Nos.4 and 5 to make the illegal gains have signed and affixed their rubber stamp/seals and joined hands with the accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

Admittedly, accused No.4 is appointed as a notary under the Notaries Act, 1952. Section 13 of the notaries’ act states that, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or in the purported exercise of his functions under this Act save upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by General or Special order in this behalf.

¶29

In the instant case, the allegation against accused No.4 is that to make an illegal gain has signed and affixed his rubber stamp/seals and has joined hands with the accused Nos.1 to 3 to sell the same to the public and cheated the Government. The said act is committed by the petitioner in exercise of his functions as a notary under the Act. Therefore, the cognizance taken of the offences alleged against the petitioner on the basis of final report submitted by the Police is contrary to Section 13 of the Act and the same stands vitiated.

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36852 CRL.P No. 2158 of 2022

¶31

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) The criminal petition is allowed

¶34

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.21505/2016 on the file of the 41st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to accused No.4 stands quashed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

B M Chandrashekar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B M Chandrashekar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Alok Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K P Manjuprakash Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Kamala Joshi Vs Mrs. Ranjana Joshi

Yogesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Bhagyalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Kumar Vs State of Karnataka