Allowed

Smt Priyanka Angur v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2024CRL.P/4992/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought quashing of proceedings for offences under Sections 504, 506, 120-B read with 34 IPC arising from a cheque dispute. The Court held investigation into non-cognizable offences without Magistrate's permission was vitiated, cognizance was mechanically taken, and no case was made out; proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.9349/2018 for Sections 504, 506, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioners.

Smt Priyanka Angur Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5521 CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4992 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PRIYANKA ANGUR W/O DR. MADHUKAR G ANGUR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1128, 21^ST A CROSS, 14^TH MAIN, 3^RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560102

¶8

DR. MADHUKAR G ANGUR S/O. SRI. GUDAPPA ANGUR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1128, 21^ST A CROSS, 14^TH MAIN, 3^RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560102

¶9

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. RAVI KUMAR S/O. SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 22, PATHRE ABBAIAH ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, KR PURAM, BENGALURU 560036

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5521 CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019

¶16

SHANKARAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001

¶17

SRI. DHANRAJ BABU G AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. SRI. GANESH P, R/AT NO. 25/1, NO. 14, SHANKAR PARK ROAD, SHANKARAPURAM, BENGALURU 560 004

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;

¶19

SMT. VIDYASHREE NAYAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE

¶21

FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2018 IN C.C.NO.9349/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU CITY FOR OFFENCE WHICH ARE MADE PENAL U/S.504,506,120-B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5521 CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The captioned petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.9349/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶26

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶27

Based on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a

¶28

crime was registered in Crime No.52/2017 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC. The allegation in the complaint is that petitioner No.2 borrowed Rs.4,75,00,000/- from the complainant and by way of security to the said loan issued a cheque in favour of the complainant. It is further alleged that respondent No.2complainant presented the cheque to his banker, the cheque came to be dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and respondent No.2 got issued a legal notice to petitioner No.2 through his Advocate. The respondent No.2 alleged that petitioner No.2, on receipt of legal notice, has sent

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:5521 CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019

¶31

three of his henchmen and threatened the complainant to

¶32

return the alleged cheque and settle the dispute.

¶33

The respondent No.1-Investigating Officer has investigated the matter and has laid charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC. Upon receipt of final report under Section 173(2), the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and has directed for registration of case and consequently process is issued against the petitioners.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue and contend that learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while taking cognizance based on charge sheet. Referring to the offence indicated in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer, he would contend that the complaint lodged by respondent No.2-complainant discloses commission of offence of cheating and therefore, Investigating Officer could not have investigated into noncognizable offence without seeking prior permission from

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5521 CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019

¶36

the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, he would contend that the Investigating Officer in the first place had no power to investigate and this aspect is not examined by the Magistrate while taking cognizance of the charge sheet materials. The second limb of arguments is that even if the entire charge sheet materials are accepted in entirety, having regard to the fact that charge sheet is laid for noncognizable offences, there are no materials which would compel the learned Magistrate to proceed against the petitioners. He would contend that even if charge sheet materials are looked into, the requisite ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 are found lacking in the final report laid by the respondent No.1-Investigating Officer. On these set of grounds, the proceedings pending in C.C.No.9349/2018 is questioned and accordingly, quashing is sought.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned HCGP. Perused the material on record.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:5521 CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019

¶40

It is not in dispute that respondent No.2-

¶41

complainant has filed a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act against petitioner No.2. Counsel on record has not disputed that private complaint is filed prior to registration of crime. If these significant details are taken into consideration, then I am of the view that the proceedings pending in C.C.No.9349/2018 are liable to be quashed on two counts. Firstly, cognizance taken by the Magistrate prima facie is found to be patently erroneous. Learned Magistrate has not examined as to whether Investigating Officer could have enquired into the crime for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. Though complainant while registering crime had alleged cheating and crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420, the Investigating Officer while submitting the final report has laid charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC. Admittedly, these offences are non-cognizable and therefore, the entire investigation done by the respondent

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:5521 CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019

¶44

No.1 stands vitiated and therefore, learned Magistrate without examining these significant details has mechanically taken cognizance and therefore, the order taking cognizance also suffers from serious infirmities.

¶45

If respondent No.2 has filed private complaint under Section 200 for the offence punishable under Section 138, the allegation in the complaint that petitioners have threatened also lacks credible support from the charge sheet materials. Even if the charge sheet materials are accepted, this Court is more than satisfied that no case is made out against the petitioners. There is

¶46

a bleak chance of conviction in the case on hand having regard to the charge sheet materials. Therefore, even on this count, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶47

Though learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant placing reliance on judgment rendered by the cognate Bench in an unreported judgment tried to persuade this Court to set aside the order taking cognizance and permit the learned Magistrate

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:5521 CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019

¶49

to proceed afresh, I am not inclined to accede to the said contention in the light of findings recorded supra. To do substantial justice and to prevent abuse of process, I am of the view that this is a fit case where this Court has to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If petitioner No.2 is already convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138, respondent No.2 has to pursue the remedy based on conviction order that is already passed against petitioner No.2. The respondent No.2-complainant could not have launched simultaneous criminal case against petitioner No.2 and other petitioners having consciously filed private complaint under Section 200 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶50

For the reasons stated supra, I pass the

¶51

following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The criminal petition is allowed;

¶54

(ii) The proceedings pending in C.C.No.9349/2018 pending on the file of the

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:5521 CRL.P No. 4992 of 2019

¶56

XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC insofar it relates to the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed;

¶57

(iii) It is needless to say that the findings recorded by this Court should have no bearing on the proceedings pending under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Smt Priyanka Angur v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Priyanka Angur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Shekar Vs the Chief General Manager

Sri Mohan Kumara Vs the Executive Director

Sri Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. T. Nagaraj Vs Lokayuktha Police

Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Umesh N Patil Vs Anticorruption Bureau