Allowed

Sri Jemmi Rahu v. K v the State-through the Police Inspector

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024CRL.P/2229/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings for possession of demonetised old currency notes worth Rs.1.28 crore charged under Section 7 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. The court held the offence non-cognizable and time-barred and quashed the charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.2891/2020 quashed; seized amount confiscated to the State.

Sri Jemmi Rahu v K Vs the State-through the Police… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45751 CRL.P No. 2229 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2229 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI JEMMI RAHU V.K. AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. SRI V.K. SUNIL RESIDING AT NO.675/8, GROUND FLOOR, 12^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, SHREYAS COLONY, GOWRAV NAGAR, 7^TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 078.

¶9

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI AJAYKUMAR ASHOK SHET AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. SRI ASHOK SHET R/AT NO.831109, DURGAKERI, BARAGADDE, NEAR OLD POST OFFICE, HONAVAR, SAMSI, UTTAR KANNADA – 581 334. ... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI KIRAN S. JAVALI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶12

SRI MURTHY MOHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE – THROUGH THE POLICE INSPECTOR, SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION, BANGALORE. REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

DR. B.S. SUDHAKAR, POLICE INSPECTOR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:45751 CRL.P No. 2229 of 2024

¶18

CCB H & B WING, CCB, N.T. PET, BANGALORE – 560 053.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. M.M. WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.29/2017 OF SESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, WHICH IS NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.2891/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 OF THE SPECIFIED BANK NOTES (CESSATION OF LIABILITIES) ACT, 2017 AND THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in CC No.2891/2020 arising out of Crime No.29/2017 registered by Seshadripuram Police, Bengaluru and charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short).

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45751 CRL.P No. 2229 of 2024

¶26

Heard Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Smt. M.M. Waheeda, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that the CCB police inspector, one Dr. B.S. Sudhakar, filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that on 19.03.2017, he found one Maruthi 800 car bearing registration No.KA-02N-7015 standing near Seshadripuram, containing the old currency notes. When on suspicion, it was inspected two persons were found keeping a sum of Rs.1,28,00,000/- of various denominations of old notes, which were demonetized by the Government of India in the year 2016.

¶28

Accordingly, FIR has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Act as well as Section 420 of IPC and after the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet only for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45751 CRL.P No. 2229 of 2024

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act is punishable only with fine or five times of the face value of the notes as penalty. The offences are non-cognizable one. Therefore, without prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., the FIR cannot be registered and the police cannot file the charge sheet. He has also contended that the FIR was registered on 19.03.2017, whereas, the charge-sheet was filed on 04.12.2019, there is a delay of two years 9

¶31

months in taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and therefore, there is a bar for taking cognizance. Hence, he prays for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶32

Learned HCGP objected the petition.

¶33

Upon hearing the arguments of learned senior

¶34

counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and on perusal of records, it is seen that FIR was registered on

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45751 CRL.P No. 2229 of 2024

¶36

19.03.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. For filing of FIR for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, permission is not required as Section 420 of IPC is a cognizable offence. However, on careful reading of the contents of the FIR, there is no ingredients made out for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, the police cleverly added Section 420 of IPC in order to avoid taking permission under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. from the Magistrate. That apart, the charge-sheet has been filed only for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, which is punishable only with fine. As per Schedule – II of the Cr.P.C., the offences punishable upto three years, other than the IPC are non-cognizable offences, therefore, the offences alleged in the charge-sheet is non-cognizable offence and without permission of the Magistrate taking cognizance and filing charge-sheet by the police is not sustainable under the law. As per Section 468 (2)(a) of Cr.P.C. if the offence punishable is only with fine, the period of limitation for taking cognizance is six months. In the

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45751 CRL.P No. 2229 of 2024

¶38

instant case, the FIR was registered on 19.03.2017 and the charge-sheet has been filed on 04.12.2019, after lapse of more than two years nine months for taking the cognizance itself, which is barred by limitation under Section 468 (2)(a) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, taking cognizance and the charge-sheet filed by the police is not sustainable under the law. Accordingly, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. Petition is allowed.

¶41

ii. The proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2891/2020 arising out of Crime No.29/2017 pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore registered by Seshadripuram Police Station and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 is hereby quashed.

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45751 CRL.P No. 2229 of 2024

¶43

iii. The amount seized by the police is confiscated to the State.

¶44

Pending I.As do not survive for consideration. Hence, dismissed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶47

MBM

¶48

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Sri Jemmi Rahu v. K v the State-through the Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jemmi Rahu v. K v the State-through the Police Inspector

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

Smt Leelavathi Vs Sri T S Ravinandana

Smt.Hemalatha Vs Smt. Kuppammal

Dilli Rani Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Gorappa @ Muniyappa Vs Shri B v Sampath

Smt a Vishalakshi Vs Smt Y P Komala

Smt. Subba Rathna Vs Sri. M.J.Rajendra Prasad