Allowed

Kiran v. N @ Vasu v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2023CRL.P/2525/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court permitted a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against Accused No.3 for cheating and extortion. The Court found essential elements of offences under Sections 385 and 504 IPC absent, ruling that continuance would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.18032/2021 insofar as they relate to Accused No.3 are quashed.

Kiran v N @ Vasu Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:33784 CRL.P No. 2525 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2525 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KIRAN V N @ VASU S/O NAGARAJ V AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.1, 1ST MAIN, GAVIPURAM EXTENSION K G NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 019.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. G K NISHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU -560 001.

¶12

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

¶13

SMT PINKY PITLIYA AGED ABOUT F39 YEARS W/O VIKRAM PITLIYA R/O AT NO.6/16B, 9TH CROSS 4TH MAIN ROAD, T R MILL NEAR CHAMARAJAPETE, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. M M WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN C.C.NO.18032/2021 ON THE FILE PENDING BEFORE THE 24th ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCE P/U/S.420, 448, 504, 506, 385 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:33784 CRL.P No. 2525 of 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-accused No.3 is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506, 448, 385 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that, initially the FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging that, they induced respondent No.2 to invest the money for establishing a saree shop and after collecting the money have not established the saree shop. In the further statement respondent No.2 as stated that, accused No.3 herein instigated the accused Nos.1 and 2 to lodge the FIR in Crime No.54/2020, alleging that the respondent No.2 after lending the money used to charge exorbitant interest on the money lent. Thereafter, the accused No.3 barged into the Mobile shop of the brother of the respondent No.2 and threatened them with dire consequences demanding that he shall not ask the accused No.1 to return the money.

¶22

The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:33784 CRL.P No. 2525 of 2022

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the FIR, even accepting on the face of it, does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of the offence of extortion. He further submits that, threatening with dire consequences has not caused the breach of public peace or commission of any other offences to constitute the commission of offence under section 506 of IPC. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of law.

¶25

Respondent No.2 though served with notice has not

¶26

chosen to appear in person or through her counsel.

¶27

On the other hand, learned HCGP for the State submits that the allegation made against the accused No.3 constitute the commission of cognizable offence, and the veracity of the allegations can be considered at the time of the Trial, and at this stage, the same cannot be gone into.

¶28

Considered the submissions made by the learned

¶29

counsel for the parties.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:33784 CRL.P No. 2525 of 2022

¶32

In the FIR there is no allegation that this accused trespassed into the Mobile shop belonging to the brother of the respondent No.2. However, in the further statement which was recorded on 22.9.2020, the defacto-complainant alleged that accused No.3 barged into the Mobile shop belonging to the brother of the respondent No.2 and threatened them with dire consequences demanding that he shall not ask the accused No.1 to return the money.

¶33

The defacto complainant has not offered any explanation for the delay in making the statement against the accused No.3 which clearly infers that the statement was made so as to falsely implicate the accused No.3, since it is alleged that accused No.3 instigated the accused Nos.1 and 2 to lodge the FIR for the offence of cheating and charging exorbitant interest against the defacto-complainant.

¶34

The accused Nos.1 and 2 had filed the FIR which was registered in Crime No.171/2020 for the offence of cheating against the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 as a counter blast lodged the FIR registered in Crime No.54/2020 for the offence of cheating.

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:33784 CRL.P No. 2525 of 2022

¶36

To constitute the offence under Section 385 of IPC,

¶37

a person must have committed extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other.

¶38

In the instant case, the allegation that, the accused No.3 instigated the accused Nos.1 and 2 to lodge the FIR for the offence of cheating and charging exorbitant interest does not fall under the definition of extortion since the respondent No.2 has not delivered any money or property to the accused Nos.1 and 2 in view of the alleged threat given by the accused No.3 herein.

¶39

The allegation that the accused No.3 threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences in the event he demanded to return the money from the accused No.1 has not resulted in causing breach of public peace or commission of any other offence by the defacto-complainant, which is an essential element to constitute the commission of offence under Section 504 of IPC.

¶40

Hence, the essential elements to constitute the commission of offence alleged against the petitioner-accused

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:33784 CRL.P No. 2525 of 2022

¶42

No.3 are conspicuously absent. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings in the absence of the same will be an abuse of process of law.

¶43

Accordingly I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The criminal petition is allowed ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.18032/2021 on the file of the 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to accused No.3 stands quashed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Kiran v. N @ Vasu v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran v. N @ Vasu 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

Shankar C Vs State by Bagalagunte P S

Sri Sudhir Gupta Vs Commissioner of Police

Nithin K.C. Vs State of Karnataka

Santhosh Kumar Vs State by

Sri Sevalal Sangna Basava Swamiji @ Yuvaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Shanthi Vs the State of Karnataka