Dismissed

Sri Nagaraj v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024CRL.P/1699/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused of robbing a complainant at gunpoint during an alleged exchange of demonetized currency sought quashing of trial proceedings. The High Court found serious allegations of dacoity and use of deadly weapons in the charge sheet and declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed with direction to trial court to expedite hearing.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:4487 CRL.P No. 1699 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. 1699 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI NAGARAJ V

¶8

S/O VADIVELU @ VARADAPPA @ VARADARAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.U-7, 2^ND CROSS 2^ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560021

¶9

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI GANDHI N S/O V NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.U-7, 2^ND CROSS 2^ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560021

¶11

SRI SHASTRI N S/O V NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.U-7, 2^ND CROSS 2^ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560021

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.UDAYA PRAKASH MULIGA, ADVOCATE FOR

¶14

SRI. KAMALUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:4487 CRL.P No. 1699 of 2020

¶19

THROUGH SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560001

¶20

SRI ARUN S/O NARASIMHA SHETTY T K AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.308, 7^TH BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI 2^ND STAGE BANGALORE-560072

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

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

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO i. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1471/2017 OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-65) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of

¶27

the proceedings pending in S.C.No.1471/2017 on the file of the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Section 395 of IPC.

¶28

2. The case of the prosecution is that respondent

¶29

No.2 who is a real estate consultant came across one

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4487 CRL.P No. 1699 of 2020

¶31

Mahesh and Selvam, who offered him to exchange the demonetized currency notes for new valid notes and on 5.1.2017 they asked him to come to the house of the accused. As agreed, on 7.1.2017, respondent No.2 reached the spot with old currency notes in five bags of worth 5 Crores. They took him to the fourth floor of the house of the petitioners-accused where petitionersaccused 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.

¶32

Pursuant to registration of crime in FIR.No.91/2017, the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation and has laid a charge sheet. Petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners placing

¶34

reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:4487 CRL.P No. 1699 of 2020

¶36

the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma .vs. Union of India¹

¶37

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.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶39

and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶40

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 and use of deadly weapons to cause grievous hurt. The

¶41

1 AIR Online 2023 SC 8

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4487 CRL.P No. 1699 of 2020

¶43

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.

¶44

Based on charge sheet materials, the

¶45

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

¶46

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the

¶47

Court below is directed to expedite the hearing.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

ALB,List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

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