Allowed

Nijamuddin Jakati S/O Hussainsab v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2024CRL.P/103201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.4 sought quashing of Spl. Case No.87/2022 for offences under IPC Sections 406, 420 r/w 149 and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act. Following the quashing of proceedings against accused No.1 on the same ground, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings qua the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Spl. Case No.87/2022 arising from Crime No.132/2021 quashed qua petitioner (accused No.4).

Nijamuddin Jakati S/O Hussainsab Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14855 CRL.P No. 103201 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103201 OF 2024

¶7

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NIJAMUDDIN JAKATI S/O. HUSSAINSAB, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.465 30, NEAR DYSP OFFICE, JANATA PLOT FALLS ROAD, GOKAK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591307.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. J.T. MULLOLLI & SRI. IQBAL I. SHAIKH, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI, GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION.

¶14

ANISH S/O. GOPAL YARDI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: LAW PRACTITIONER, R/O. KILLA GOKAK, GOKAK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591307.

¶15

MANJANNA E

¶16

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court ofKarnataka Dharwad Date: 2024.10.07 10:17:43 +0530

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR ARISING OUT OF GOKAK TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.132/2021 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. CASE NO.87/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 420 R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/S 21(1)(2)(3) AND 23 OF BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14855 CRL.P No. 103201 of 2024

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶26

The petitioner-accused no.4 is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C. No. 87/2022 arising out of Crime No. 132/2021 for the offences punishable u/S 406, 420 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC and u/S 21(1)(2)(3) and 23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that qua accused no.1 this Court in Crl. P. No. 102543/2023 dated 05.10.2023 has observed as follows and allowed the petition:

¶28

“The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Spl. Case No.87/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 21(1)(2)(3) and 23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Vijay Mohan Honakamble and another vs. State of Karnataka and others in Crl.P. No.101143/2022, disposed off on 17.08.2023, wherein the identical issues have been raised and have been answered in favour of the petitioner therein. This Court has held as follows:

¶30

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the subject lis is answered

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14855 CRL.P No. 103201 of 2024

¶33

in the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar S/o. Gadeppa Khot & another Vs. the State of Karnataka & another in W.P. No.102888/2022, disposed off on 19^th October 2022, wherein it is held as under:

¶34

“The FIR is registered in Crime No.257/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 of IPC and Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short) alleging that accused Nos.1 and 4 induced the people to deposit money stating that the amount invested will be doubled and the said amount which is invested by the public have been utilized for own purpose and for other purposes and during the course of investigation, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, as they were collecting the money from the public as agents of accused No.1. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶35

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Section 27 of the Act specifies that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under that section except upon a complaint made by the Regulator. He further submits that the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act is one without authority of law.

¶36

3. The learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the petitioners

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14855 CRL.P No. 103201 of 2024

¶39

having collected money illegally from the people, committed the aforesaid offences and the Police have registered the FIR and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶40

4. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

5. Section 7 of the Act, specifies that appropriate government shall, by notification, appoint one or more officers not below the rank of Secretary to that government, as the competent authority for the purpose of this Act. Section 8 specifies that the appropriate government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute one or more Courts known as the Designated Courts for such area or areas to deal with the matters to which the provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act applies. Section 27 of the Act specifies that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under that section except upon a complaint made by the Regulator.

¶42

6. A conjoint reading of this provision indicates that the government shall first appoint a Regulator and thereafter designate a Court to deal with the matters to which the provisions of this Act apply and the Designated Court can take cognizance only on a complaint in writing made by the Regulator.

¶43

7. In the instant case, the Regulator has not filed a complaint before the Designated Court so

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14855 CRL.P No. 103201 of 2024

¶45

¶46

as to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act. However, the Police have registered the FIR for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the registration of the FIR for the aforesaid offences is one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Writ Petition is allowed.

¶49

The impugned FIR in Crime No.257/2021 filed by the Chikkodi Police Station insofar it relates to accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed.”

¶50

In the light of the issue standing answered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid order, the petitioner is also entitled to the very same relief.”

¶51

Learned AGA would not dispute the position of law

¶52

as is observed in the aforesaid case referred supra.

¶53

Therefore, for the reasons rendered therein, the subject petition also deserves to be succeed.

¶54

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶57

(ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl. Case No.87/2022 qua the petitioner stands quashed. “

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14855 CRL.P No. 103201 of 2024

¶60

The petitioner-accused no.4 is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C. No. 87/2022 arising out of Crime No. 132/2021 for the offences punishable u/S 406, 420 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC and u/S 21(1)(2)(3) and 23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act.

¶61

In the light of the proceedings qua accused no.1 being quashed and on the same reason the petitioner-accused no.4 is also entitled to the same relief.

¶62