Dismissed

Sri. Nagaraj v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024CRL.P/1458/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused of dacoity while posing as exchangers of demonetized currency sought quashing of trial proceedings, arguing demonetized notes were not legal tender. The High Court declined, citing serious charge sheet allegations and gravity of offences, dismissed the petition and directed expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed, trial court directed to expedite hearing.

Sri. Nagaraj v Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:4488 CRL.P No. 1458 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1458 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NAGARAJ V S/O. VADIVELU @ VARADAPPA @ VARADARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT U-7, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶8

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. GANDHI. N S/O. V. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT U-7, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶10

SRI. SHASTRI. N S/O. V. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT U-7, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI.UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE FOR

¶13

SRI. KAMALUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:4488 CRL.P No. 1458 of 2020

¶17

THROUGH KENGERI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

SRI. CHANDRAKUMAR S/O. LATE R. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1019/A, 2ND MAIN, SERVICE ROAD, VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1302/2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT POLICE ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO.60) NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY CCH-NO.65 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 397 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of

¶25

the proceedings pending in S.C.No.1302/2017 on the file of the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Section 397 of IPC.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4488 CRL.P No. 1458 of 2020

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that respondent

¶28

No.2 who is a real estate consultant had collected Rs.2.5 crores of Rs.500 and Rs.1000/- demonetized currency notes from his friends and relatives. While he was planning to deposit the same in the bank, he got a call from accused No.2-Byappa who offered him to exchange the demonetized currency notes for new valid notes at 20% commission and asked him to come near National Public School, Kengeri Sattellite Town, Bengaluru. As agreed, respondent No.2 reached the spot, accused Nos.1 to 3 threatened the complainant at gun point and forcibly committed robbery. The further case of the prosecution is that accused were armed with deadly weapons and by terrorizing respondent No.2-complainant, the accused have managed to commit dacoity.

¶29

Pursuant to registration of crime in FIR.No.210/2017, the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation and has laid a charge sheet. Petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:4488 CRL.P No. 1458 of 2020

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma .vs. Union of India¹ would point out that on account demonetization, currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- were not amenable to legal tender and therefore, even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted in entirety, no offence is made out and therefore, the present petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶33

The case of the prosecution is that respondents under the garb of exchanging demonetized currency notes into valid notes have forcibly taken huge monies and the crime is registered. The investigating Officer after due investigation has laid a charge sheet. The charge sheet materials clearly reveal that serious allegations are attributed against the petitioners of committing dacoity

¶34

1 AIR Online 2023 SC 8

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4488 CRL.P No. 1458 of 2020

¶36

and use of deadly weapons to cause grievous hurt. The material on record also indicates that there are allegations that accused have given a life threat. If the allegations in the complaint are accepted and the charge sheet materials are looked into, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner. Bearing in mind the gravity of the offences indicated in the complaint and the charge sheet, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶37

Based on charge sheet materials, the

¶38

prosecution is entitled to bring home the guilt of the petitioners and the petitioners have an opportunity to contest and defend the trial.

¶39

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the

¶40

Court below is directed to expedite the hearing.

¶41

ALB, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

Sri. Nagaraj v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagaraj 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

Sri C Arun Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

S L Krishna Murthy Vs the Managing Director

Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Satish R Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraj v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraj v Vs the State of Karnataka