Allowed

Sri Narahari @ Benaka v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024CRL.P/4754/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that initiating proceedings without prior Magistrate permission rendered the process an abuse of law, consistent with orders against other accused in the same case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.17141/2011 were quashed. Seized materials ordered confiscated. Pending incidental applications dismissed.

Sri Narahari @ Benaka Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:41818 CRL.P No. 4754 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4754 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI NARAHARI @ BENAKA S/O. THATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO. 527, HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR R S.,ADVOCATE (VC))

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THILAKNAGARA P.S. (CCB N.T. PETE), BENGALURU, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP)

¶16

CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.3) IN C.C.NO.17141/2011 (CR.NO.50/2011) REGISTERED BY THE THILAKNAGAR POLICE STATION (CCB NT PET) FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 420 OF IPC, SEC.66-D OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 R/W SEC.78(a)(6) AND SEC.80 OF

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:41818 CRL.P No. 4754 of 2024

¶19

KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ACMM AT BENGALURU.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Though, this matter is listed to decide on IA Nos. 1/2024 and 2/2024, having regard to the facts and

¶24

circumstances of this case and with consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.3, under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.17141/2011 arising out of Crime No.50/2011 registered by the Thilaknagar Police Station and charge sheeted by the CCB Police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act’) r/w. Section 78(A) (6) and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act (for short, ‘KP Act’).

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:41818 CRL.P No. 4754 of 2024

¶28

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that the CCB Police have filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences. It is alleged that on the credible information by the CCB Police, on 25.02.2011, that the petitioner and others were playing gambling in respect of World Cup Cricket match between New Zealand and Australia, at House No.731, 28^th Main road, 39^th Cross, the police raided and seized cash, laptop, TV, mobile phones and other materials and they filed a complaint to the Thilaknagar Police Station, in turn, the charge sheet came to be filed.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged offences under Sections 78(A)(6) and 80 of KP Act are non-cognizable offences. The police have purposely added Sections 420 of IPC and 66(D) of IT Act to show that they are cognizable offences and there is no

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:41818 CRL.P No. 4754 of 2024

¶33

material to show that there is any cognizable offence made out in the FIR. Therefore, without obtaining permission under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., the Police have registered FIR and filed the charge sheet. Therefore, taking cognizance by the Magistrate is illegal.

¶34

The learned counsel also contended that this Court already quashed criminal proceedings in respect of accused Nos.1 in Crl.Petition No.8951/2021 disposed of on 25.01.2022 and accused No.7 in Crl.Petition No.5026/2023 disposed of on 30.06.2023 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this in respect of accused Nos. 5 and 6 in Crl.Petition No.3132/2016 disposed of on 28.08.2018. Hence, sought

¶35

for quashing the criminal proceedings against this petitioner also.

¶36

Per contra, learned HCGP objected quashing of the criminal proceedings against accused No.3.

¶37

Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, especially the orders passed by this Court in respect of accused No.1 in Crl. Petition No.8951/2021

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41818 CRL.P No. 4754 of 2024

¶39

disposed of on 25.01.2022 and in respect of accused No.7 in Crl. Petition No.5026/2023 disposed of on 30.06.2023, wherein this Court quashed the criminal proceedings. A Co-ordinate Bench also quashed criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 5 and 6 in Crl.Petition No.3132/2016 disposed of on 28.08.2018. The allegation is also common as against all the accused persons and therefore, when the police have not obtained permission from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., initiated criminal proceedings, filed the charge sheet is abuse of process of law. Therefore, this petitioner is also entitled for the relief on par with the other accused. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

(i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings against the petitioner – accused No.3 in C.C.No.17141/ *2011 pending on the file of

¶41

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶42

*Corrected vide Chamber order dated 20/01/2025.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41818 CRL.P No. 4754 of 2024

¶44

Bengaluru arising out of Crime No. 50/2021 registered by Thilaknagar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 78(A)(6) and 80 of KP Act, Section 420 of IPC and Section 66(D) of IT Act is hereby quashed.

¶45

(iii) The materials seized by the police is ordered to be confiscated.

¶46

(iv) IA Nos.1/2024 and 2/2024 do not survive for consideration. Hence, they are dismissed.

¶47

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8

Sri Narahari @ Benaka v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narahari @ Benaka 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kum Prakruthi J Vs Smt Lakshmi Devi

Purushottham Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Razak Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Imran @ Twist Imran Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Prime Label Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Kantilal Pukhraj Jain