Allowed

Shri Nagadeep K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2023CRL.P/5044/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of FIR and proceedings under IS 482 CrPC. The petitioner accused of cheating and sexual offences was absolved of liability as charge sheet lacked material evidence connecting him to the inducement of the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2634/2023 quashed.

Shri Nagadeep K Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36078 CRL.P No. 5044 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5044 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI. NAGADEEP K, S/O KODANDARAM N, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.111, M.S.ROYAL, 2^ND MAIN, AREKERE, BANNERGHATA ROAD, OPP. ICICI BANK ATM, BENGALURU – 560 076. (BY SRI. MAHESH R.D., ADVOCATE)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

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

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, KENGERI GATE SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU – 560 040. REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

SMT. MOHAMMODA BEGUM, W/O ABDUL ALEEM, AGED 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.93, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, 1^ST C CROSS, REMCO LAYOUT, HAMPI NAGARA, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 040.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:36078 CRL.P No. 5044 of 2023

¶16

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

¶17

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 07.11.2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, AT BENGALURU; 2. QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.328/2022 DATED 07.11.2022 REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.2634/2023 BY THE RESPONDENT - CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE, KENGERI GATE SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCES U/S 506, 504, 406, 420, 323, 354 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner/accused No.4 is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 354, 406, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶21

The second respondent lodged the FIR against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging that they induced the defacto complainant to make investment by promising to pay profit on the investment. However, accused Nos.1 and 2 instead of investing the money, have utilized the money for personal use. When the complainant questioned accused Nos.1 and 2, at that time, they assaulted her and outraged her modesty. The statement of the informant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, wherein she reiterated the allegation made in the FIR. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet arraigning the petitioner as accused No.4.

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36078 CRL.P No. 5044 of 2023

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner connived with the other accused induced the complainant to invest money by promising her to pay profits on the investment. Therefore, in the absence o any material, the charge sheet laid for the aforesaid offences is without any substance and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶24

Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the charge sheet clearly discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner and the veracity of the allegation against the petitioner can be considered at the time of trial and the same cannot be gone into in this petition.

¶25

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

¶26

The defacto complainant/C.W.1 in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C has categorically stated that accused No.1 is the owner of the G-Turns Investment Pvt. Ltd., and he induced the complainant to invest the money and the complainant in all invested a sum or Rs.20,00,000/-. She has further stated that accused No.1 instead of investing the money deposited by the complainant has utilized the same for his personal use and when she questioned the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted and abused her and outraged her modesty. The statement of C.Ws.2 to 5 also does not disclose

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:36078 CRL.P No. 5044 of 2023

¶29

that they have not spoken about the role of the petitioner/accused No.4 in inducing the complainant to invest money. The charge sheet material does not contain any material to substantiate that the petitioner connived with accused No.1 to induce the complainant to invest money. Therefore, in the absence of any material to constitute the commission of offences alleged against the petitioner/accused No.4, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶32

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2634/2023 on the file of IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is quashed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83

Shri Nagadeep K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nagadeep K 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

Brainly India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

K. Sunil Kumar Vs State by Bagalur Police

Mr. Pradeep Vs the State of Karnataka by

Lokesh K S Vs State by

C S Sathisha Vs State by

Smt Meenakshi D M Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha