Allowed

Lohith v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2023CRL.P/2733/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the second FIR under Section 482 CrPC for cheating against the petitioner-accused, holding that a subsequent FIR on the same cause of action is impermissible when the same allegations were already investigated in a prior FIR.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No. 303/2021 relating to the petitioner-accused No. 1 is quashed; liberty reserved for proceeding against accused No. 2.

Lohith v Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:33204 CRL.P No. 2733 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2733 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LOHITH V S/O VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, WORKING AS COMPUTER OPERATOR R/AT MEDARA BLOCK, PERIYAPATNA TOWN MYSORE DISTRICT-22

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

REP. BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE STATION MYSORE DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-01.

¶13

B MARANNA

¶14

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

¶15

S/O LATE BAMMAI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS REGIONAL MANAGER, TOBACCO BOARD KAGGUNDI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-22

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. K P YASHODA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. B M KUSHALAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.303/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.408,409,468,471,420,34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) AND JMFC PERIYAPATNA.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:33204 CRL.P No. 2733 of 2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner-accused No.1 is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 468, 420, r/w 34 IPC.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner who was working as a Computer Operator on contract basis at Market No.5 of Tobacco Board, Kaggundi, Periyapatna has used the pre-printed sale note and created fake sale notes thereby committed fraud on the 6 agriculturists.

¶25

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

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, against the very same allegation, the FIR was lodged by one Sharath in Crime No.278/2021, and the Police after conducting investigation laid the charge sheet for the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent had lodged the FIR making similar allegations in Crime No.303/2021. Therefore, the registration of the 2^nd FIR on the same cause of action is impermissible.

¶27

In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, reported in, [2020 14 SCC 12]

¶28

Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that, the Police on the earlier FIR filed by one Sharath has implicated only the petitioner and the accused No.2 in the

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:33204 CRL.P No. 2733 of 2022

¶30

impugned proceedings was not implicated. Therefore, the registration of the 2^nd FIR is permissible. He further submits that, accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired to cheat the agriculturists and the same constitute the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.1 herein.

¶31

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

It is undisputed that one Sharath lodged the FIR making the very same allegation, and the Police after investigation submitted the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner-accused No.1 herein, only thereafter, the 2^nd Respondent-Board had lodged the FIR making the similar allegations, that, the accused No.1 and 2 connived with each other in cheating.

¶33

The allegation of cheating by the petitioner herein is the subject matter of the charge sheet filed in Crime No.278/2021, and the petitioner cannot be subjected to investigation on the same cause of action.

¶34

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, reported in, [2020 14 SCC 12] has held that subsequent FIR in respect of same cause of action is not maintainable.

¶35

Hence, the registration of the 2^nd FIR on the very same set of allegation is impermissible. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioner-accused

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:33204 CRL.P No. 2733 of 2022

¶38

No.1 will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶41

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.303/2021, registered by the Periyapatna Police Station, Mysuru, insofar, it relates to petitioner-accused No.1 is hereby quashed.

¶42

iii) Liberty is reserved with the Police to proceed with the investigation against the accused No.2 in accordance with law.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Lohith v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lohith v. Vs 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

Gilbert Sequera Vs State of Karnataka

Amster Labs Vs State at the Instance the Drugs Inspector

Mr. Mohammed Basheer Vs the State of Karnataka

Radhakrishna Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Dhanraj Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Vageesh G M Vs the State of Karnataka by Rajajinagar Police Station