Dismissed

Vikas Gupta @ Vikas Agarwal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024CRL.P/7688/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Attempt-to-kill case arising from business rivalry; petitioner arraigned as accused No.11 for being in contact with accused No.1. Court held co-accused statement plus investigative material justified prosecution and the complainant's exoneration affidavit was inconsequential; petition dismissed with liberty to satisfy the Investigating Officer.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vikas Gupta @ Vikas Agarwal Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:31918 CRL.P No. 7688 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7688 OF 2018 (482)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VIKAS GUPTA @ VIKAS AGARWAL, S/O ANIL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT VASA BANDHAN, No.920, 9^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, B.T.M LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 076.

¶10

ALSO AT C/O AGARWAL TRADERS, No.1854, 11^TH MAIN, 39^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 4^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 011.

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ AND SRI.SHARATHS.KULKARNI FOR SRI. GOVINDARAJU.L., ADVOCATES)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

CHIRAGH AGARWAL, S/O KANHAIYA LAL,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31918 CRL.P No. 7688 of 2018

¶18

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT No.607, 2^ND CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BYSMT. WAHEEDA.M.M., HCGP FOR R-1; MS. ADITHI, FOR SRI SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 22.08.2018 IN C.C.No.23275/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 45^TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-“C”), ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. S. SANJAY GOWDA

¶24

CAV ORDER

¶25

( PER : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. S. SANJAY GOWDA)

¶26

On 02.06.2018, a complaint was lodged by Chirag

¶27

Agarwal to the Police Inspector, Koramangala Police Station. In this complaint, he has stated that he was the Director of Farm India Impex Private Limited engaged in trading maize, and his younger brother–Rishi Agarwal was also working with him. He stated that his father–

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31918 CRL.P No. 7688 of 2018

¶29

Kanhaiyalal was the proprietor of Kanhaiyalal and

¶30

Company, engaged in the brokerage business pertaining to trading of maize and was also having his office at Raheja Arcade in Koramangala, and all of them were doing business in the same office.

¶31

He stated that at about 01.50 p.m. or 1.55 p.m. on 02.06.2018, three unknown persons wearing helmets came to their office and tried to get inside his father’s cabin, but their employee–Krishnamurthy stopped them and took them to the reception to enquire as to why they had come to the office. It was stated that they informed Krishnamurthy that they came looking for a job, but were then informed there was no job vacancies, even after which they refused to leave. It was stated that when Krishnamurthy said he would call the security, suddenly, took a pistol out and opened fire at his father’s cabin’s glass door. It was stated that thereafter, another person entered his father’s cabin with another pistol with two persons standing near the entrance. The person who had

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31918 CRL.P No. 7688 of 2018

¶33

gone into his father’s cabin broke the glass door and fired three rounds at his father. It was stated that one person fired at his father’s assistant’s cabin and thereafter, all three persons ran away from the office. He stated that he found his father bleeding from the left side of his head and the complainant along with his brother took his father to

¶34

St. Johns Medical College hospital for treatment. He further stated that there was one other person who had come with the three and was waiting near the elevator. It was stated that he had also run away with them.

¶35

He thus stated that three unknown persons had come to their office in the pretext of asking a job and had opened fire on his father with an intention of killing him. He therefore requested for initiation of criminal proceedings against the four unknown persons. He also described the assailants to be aged between 30 and 38 years, and the person who shot to his father was of a dark complexion and about six feet tall.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31918 CRL.P No. 7688 of 2018

¶37

He lastly stated that his father was running a maize business in Bihar and had been threatened by Mr. Rajendra Agarwal from Hasanpur in Bihar in the month of March, 2018 and the complainant thus suspected him for this incident. The police registered a case under Crime No.178/2018 for the offences under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. In the FIR, the police arraigned four unknown persons as accused No.1 and Rajendra Agarwal as accused No.2, as he was named in the complaint by the complainant. The police after investigation proceeded to lay a charge-sheet against 11 people. Rajendra Agarwal,

¶38

who has been named in the complaint, was arraigned as accused No.1.

¶39

The petitioner herein i.e., Vikas Gupta has been arraigned as accused No.11. The charge-sheet also indicates that the petitioner was absconding and warrants had been issued to secure his presence, and that

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31918 CRL.P No. 7688 of 2018

¶41

investigation as against them would be undertaken by

¶42

seeking permission under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

¶43

In the charge-sheet, in respect of the present petitioner, it is stated as follows:

¶44

“DgÉÆÃ¦-11 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÆ.£ÀA.9844091*** ¸ÁQë-57 gÀªÀgÀ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ KgïmÉ¯ï ¸À«Ãð¸ï ¥ÉÆæÃªÉÊqÀgï C£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj £ÀA§gï DvÀ£À vÁ¬Ä ²æÃªÀÄw D±Á UÀÄ¥ÁÛ gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀÄvÉÛ ªÉÆ.£ÀA.98802*****, 98802***** ¸ÁQë-56 gÀªÀgÀ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ KgïmÉ¯ï ¸À«Ãð¸ï ¥ÉÆæÃªÉÊqÀgï C£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj £ÀA§gï DgÉÆÃ¦-11 gÀªÀgÀ CUÀgïªÁ¯ï mÉæÃqÀ¸ïð ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀÄvÉÛ DgÉÆÃ¦-11 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA§gïUÀ½AzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÆ.£ÀA.87899***** gÀªÀjUÉ PÀÈvÀå £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ ªÀÄÄAa¤AzÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðzÀ°èzÀÄÝ F £ÀA§AzsÀ ¸ÁQë-56 & 57 gÀªÀgÀÄ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”

¶45

As could be seen from the extracted statement, the petitioner is alleged to have been using a mobile phone through which he was calling accused No.1 and therefore, he was also suspected to be involved in the incident.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that said allegations are absolutely false. He submits that an

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31918 CRL.P No. 7688 of 2018

¶48

affidavit has now been filed by the complainant–Chirag Agarwal saying that the petitioner is his first cousin i.e., the son of his father’s sister, and that they had a good relationship with the petitioner and his family. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner was the Director of Akchand Agricom Private Limited, which was engaged in the business of trading food grains and though the petitioner had been engaged in a similar business, there had never been any competition between the two businesses and neither party had any interest in the business dealings of the other. The affidavit also states

¶49

that the petitioner was transacting with accused No.1 since 2017 for the purpose of purchasing maize and in this regard, he was in touch with Rajendra Agarwal.

¶50

It has also been stated that it is only on account of the petitioner’s business association with Rajendra

¶51

Agarwal that he has been arraigned as an accused in the charge-sheet and it has been stated in the affidavit that after the incident had occurred, the petitioner had met him

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31918 CRL.P No. 7688 of 2018

¶53

and was shocked to learn about the incident while informing that he was completely unaware of the incident until March, 2018. It is further stated in the affidavit that after the matter was discussed with the petitioner at length, the complainant was of the opinion that he did not have any role to play with the commission of the crime and both he and his father would have no objection if this Court discharged the petitioner or quashed the proceedings as against him. He thus submits that on the basis of this very affidavit, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶54

He also seeks to contend that the mere assertion that the petitioner was in touch with accused No.1 would, by itself, cannot be adequate for prosecuting him. It is stated that the entire prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and, therefore, there was absolutely no justification in prosecuting him.

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31918 CRL.P No. 7688 of 2018

¶56

It is no doubt true that if the prosecution against a person is based solely on the testimony of the co-accused, the same would be untenable. However, in a case where a co-accused makes a statement against another accused and the police conducts an investigation and secures materials which indicate that the accused was in touch with the other accused, leading to an inference that he was also a party to the crime, it cannot in such cases be contended that the prosecution is based only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. In this case, admittedly, the allegation is that the attempt to kill the complainant’s father was at the behest of accused No.1– Rajendra Agarwal.

¶57

The allegations in the charge-sheet indicate that accused No.11 had been in touch with accused No.1 prior to the incident and it is also forthcoming that he was also engaged in maize business. In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned counsel that the proceedings are

¶58

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:31918 CRL.P No. 7688 of 2018

¶59

liable to be quashed as against accused No.11 cannot be accepted.

¶60

As far as the affidavit of the complainant exonerating the petitioner of any complicity in the crime is concerned, it is to be stated here that an investigation can’t be controlled by the complainant whereby he can choose to suspect someone and seek to exonerate another. In a case of this nature, when an attempt to shoot a businessman as a result of business rivalry is concerned, the investigation agencies are required to be guided by the materials secured during the course of investigation and not the thoughts of the complainant. The affidavit, therefore, would not be of any consequence to decide whether the prosecution is justified or not.

¶61

Since the charge-sheet indicates that accused No.11 had absconded, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the Investigating Officer and clarify that the contact he claims to have made with accused No.1 was

¶62

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:31918 CRL.P No. 7688 of 2018

¶63

only with respect to his business and had nothing to do with the above-narrated incident.

¶64

Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Investigating Officer and satisfy the Investigating Officer that he had nothing to do with the attempts made to kill the complainant’s father.

¶65

If the Investigating Officer on further investigation (after obtaining permission from the learned Magistrate as stated in the charge-sheet) comes to the conclusion that the petitioner had no role to play in the incident, it would be open for the Investigating Officer to drop the charges against the petitioner herein. Subject to the above, this petition is dismissed .

¶66

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶67

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1 GSR

Vikas Gupta @ Vikas Agarwal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vikas Gupta @ Vikas Agarwal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rabiya Begum Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Jessy Robert Vs State of Karnataka

S Aditya Ravi Raj Vs State of Karnataka

Mukram Ulla Khan Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele)

M/S Sandesh Enterprises Vs the Excise Commissioner of Karnataka

Sri. K. Shivashankar Vs the Union of India