Allowed

Basrur Rajeev Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2024CRL.P/5880/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought quashing of proceedings for allegedly floating a trust using the Indian Red Cross Society name. Charge sheet retained only Section 420 IPC, dropping Trade Marks and Emblems Act offences; no other trustees were arrayed though the trust had closed before the complaint. High Court held continuation amounted to abuse of process and quashed proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Crime No.93/2020 pending in CC No.170/2023 under Section 420 IPC before First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, quashed.

Basrur Rajeev Shetty Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48019 CRL.P No. 5880 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5880 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶8

BASRUR RAJEEV SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE M SHIVARAMA SHETTY, RESIDING AT NO.11-2-70E, PADMAJA PRAGATHI NAGAR, MOODANIDAMBURU, UDUPI - 576 101

¶9

(BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UDUPI TOWN POLICE, UDUPI - 576 101 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶13

S. NAGANNA, CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE BRANCH, INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, NO.26, RED CROSS BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.S.P.P. FOR R1

¶15

SRI. PARAMESHWAR .N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:48019 CRL.P No. 5880 of 2021

¶17

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING CR.NO.93/2020 ON THE FILE OF 1^ST RESPONDENT UDUPI TOWN POLICE, UDUPI PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 420 OF IPC AND SECTION 103 AND 104 OF TRADE MARKS ACT AND SECTION 3 OF EMBLEMS AND NAME (PREVENTION OF IMPROPER USE) ACT, 1950 IN EXERCISE OF THE INHERENT POWERS OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. AS AMENDED AND THE SAME IS OBVIOUSLY WITH A VIEW OF PREVENT THE ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE CONCERNED JURISDICTIONAL COURT AND SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE TO THE PETITIONER.

¶19

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Petitioner being the accused in Cr.No.93/2020 of Udupi Town Police station, pending in CC No.170/2023 on the file of the learned First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as complainant has filed the first information with Udupi Town

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48019 CRL.P No. 5880 of 2021

¶25

Police alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Section 103 and 104 of Trade Marks Act 1999 and under Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950.

¶26

It is alleged that the Indian Red Cross Society (for short IRCS) is a voluntary Humanitarian Organization established in 1920 under the Indian Red Cross Society Act, having its head office at New Delhi and the branches in districts of various states in India. It was noticed by respondent No.2 that the petitioner being a member of a State Managing Committee of IRCS, illegally found a registered trust in the name and style of Indian Red Cross Society Charitable Trust, Udupi vide registered trust deed using the name of IRCS without any authorisation, and he is the author of the trust deed and the managing trustee of the trust. It is alleged that the aims and objectives of the trust deed are deceptively similar to that of IRCS and the intention on the part of the petitioner is to represent and mislead the public at large by using deceptively similar name and make illegal gain. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner taking advantage of his position in the state managing committee, misused his

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48019 CRL.P No. 5880 of 2021

¶28

authority by floating a trust, and asked them huge funds by way of donations, and thereby he has committed the offences as stated above.

¶29

On the basis of first information, the FIR in Cr.No.93/2023 came to be registered for the above said offences. It is stated that now the investigation is completed, charge sheet is filed in the year 2020. While filing the charge sheet, the investigating officer has dropped the penal provisions i.e, Section 103 and 104 of Trade Marks Act, Section 3 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper use Act) and has filed the charge sheet only for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. It is stated that the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and now the matter is pending in CC No.170/2023. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶30

Heard Sri. Sampat Anand Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1. and Sri. Parameshwar N Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials available on record.

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48019 CRL.P No. 5880 of 2021

¶32

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶33

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶34

“Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?”

¶35

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶36

R E A S O N S

¶37

It is the specific contention taken by respondent No.2 that petitioner being the representative of the State Committee of Indian Red Cross Society, floated his own trust under the name and style of Indian Red Cross Society Charitable Trust with eight trustees with an intention to get funds from the general public by deceiving them by making use of the name IRCS. Since the name is phonetically similar, and the emblem used is deceptively similar, he has committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC, and also under Section 103 and 104 of Trade Marks Act 1999, and under Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48019 CRL.P No. 5880 of 2021

¶39

Admittedly, the charge sheet came to be filed only under Section 420 of IPC while dropping the offence under Special Enactment.

¶40

It is pertinent to note that the first information came to be filed only against the present petitioner even though there are 7 or 8 other trustees who were also part of the charitable trust. It is stated that the Trust was founded on 06.01.2020 and it was closed on 09.09.2020. It is only thereafter, the complaint came to be filed on 23.09.2020. Therefore, for all practical purposes while registering the FIR, the trust was not in existence. Even in the charge sheet, there is no specific reason for not arraying the other trustees as accused. Moreover, when the main offences under the special enactment i.e, under Trade Marks Act and Emblem Act were dropped by the Investigating Officer, the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC, cannot be accepted.

¶41

Admittedly, respondent No.2 has not challenged dropping of offences under Special Enactment till date, even though the charge sheet is filed in the year 2020. Under such

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:48019 CRL.P No. 5880 of 2021

¶43

circumstances, I find considerable force in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶44

Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Criminal petition is allowed .

¶47

The entire criminal proceedings in Crime No.93/2020 of Udupi Town Police Station, pending in CC No.170/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC on the file of the learned First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, is hereby quashed.

¶48

In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending IA stands disposed of.

¶49

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶50

BH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24

Basrur Rajeev Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basrur Rajeev Shetty 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

Raghu M S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S v Srinivas Murthy HUF Vs M/S Savi Enterprises

Shri a Mohan Das Vs Shri Himanshu Gupta

Ananth Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms Samara Mahindra Vs M/S Mahaveer Invetsments

Sri Jayachandra Naidu Vs State of Karnataka