Dismissed

Sri. Karthik. C v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2024CRL.P/8624/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition challenged the quashability of a charge sheet alleging financial fraud and forgery under the IPC. The court examined FSL reports and farmer statements suggesting the petitioner's direct involvement in signing documents. Finding prima facie material requiring trials, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition seeking quashing of the charge sheet in C.C. No. 1264/2023 was dismissed.

Sri. Karthik. C Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5286 CRL.P No. 8624 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8624 OF 2023 (482)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. KARTHIK. C. S/O. H.N. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, KUMBARPET, HOSAKOTE - 562114.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE POLICE SUB INSPETCOR, CHINTAMANI TOWN POLICE STATION, CHINTAMANI SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT ANNEX BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶11

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, ECONOMIC OFFENCES & SPECIAL UNIT, ADGP, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT ANNEX BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶12

SRI. M.L. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED MAJOR, REGIONAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSE DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:5286 CRL.P No. 8624 of 2023

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.1264/2023 (FIR IN CR.NO.162/2019) REGISTERED BY CHINTAMANI POLICE FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 120(b), 406, 407, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477(a) R/W 34, 37 OF IPC BASED ON THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.07.2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn) AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶21

“quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.1264/2023 (FIR in Crime No.162/2019) registered by Chintamani Police for an offence punishable U/S 120(b), 406, 407, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477(a) R/W 34, 37 of IPC based on the complaint dated 11.07.2019 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC, Chintamani, grant such other relief/s as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶22

Respondents No.3 filed a complaint on 11.07.2019

¶23

with the Police Inspector, Chintamani Police Station,

¶24

against the petitioner and others for offenses punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 407, 409,

¶25

420, 465, 468, 471, 477(A) R/w. Sections 34 and 37

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5286 CRL.P No. 8624 of 2023

¶27

of the IPC, which is registered as Crime No.162/2019 and on investigation being completed, charge sheet was laid CC No.1264/2023 alleging that the accused had in all misappropriated a sum of Rs.23,15,43,455/-, by fabricating the receipts said to be issued on behalf of the Warehouse Corporation and on that basis, contending that the agriculturalists/farmers had stored cereals and grains in the warehouse, obtained loans from ICICI Bank, State Bank of India, Federal Bank, IDBI Bank, Karur Vaisya Bank, Krishna Pragati Bank, Karnataka Bank etc., by hypothecating of the said goods, on account of deposit of the receipts issued by the Warehouse Corporation with the said banks.

¶28

The petitioner and his brother accused no.2 had earlier approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.6183/2020, which came to be disposed by order dated 09.12.2020, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court once again in the event of

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5286 CRL.P No. 8624 of 2023

¶30

charge sheet being filed, since the said petition was filed at the stage of FIR and investigation was going on.

¶31

The present petition is being filed only by the petitioner after the charge sheet was laid, Sri. Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has nothing to do with accused No.1. Accused No.2 – Mahantesh, though being his brother, is running his own business by the name of Mahantesh Traders, of which he is a proprietor. The petitioner, who is accused No.3, has nothing to do with Accused no.2 or the said proprietary concern. Apart therefrom, he submits that there is no particular allegation which has been made against the petitioner having availed of and taken the benefit of the alleged amount derived from and out of the loans obtained from the various banks, if at all, it is only accused No.2 in whose name the deposits have been made and who has

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5286 CRL.P No. 8624 of 2023

¶33

availed the benefits and as such, the proceedings could continue against accused No.2 and not against the petitioner, who is accused No.3.

¶34

Sri. B. N. Jagadeesh, learned counsel who is appearing for the respondent No.3, having filed a memo enclosing the FSL reports issued by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Eastern Range, Davangere, submits that the handwriting expert has opined that many of the documents subject matter of the criminal investigation have been written by accused No.3. Apart therefrom he submits that, many of the farmers have detailed out in their statements, the manner in which the fraud has taken place, wherein specific allegations have been made against accused No.3 along with that made against accused No.2 and hence he submits that the allegation is not only against accused No.2, but also against accused No.3, which requires this Court ought not to quash the present proceedings.

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5286 CRL.P No. 8624 of 2023

¶36

Heard Sri.M. B. Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. B. N. Jagadeesha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and the learned HCGP.

¶37

The documents produced along with the charge sheet would contain various statements made by the farmers indicating that the petitioner along with his brother had approached them and that both of them had obtained various signatures from the said farmers in whose name loans were obtained by creating a false deposit receipts, thus there are overt acts alleged against the Petitioner. The FSL report indicates that the signatures on various documents are that of accused No.3.

¶38

In that view of the matter, it cannot be said at this stage, that there is no material on record to indicate there is involvement of accused No.3 or not. These issues would have to be decided during the course of trial. There being prima facie material available on

¶39

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:5286 CRL.P No. 8624 of 2023

¶40

record in the charge sheet, I do not find this to be a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the criminal proceedings. As such, the petition making out no grounds stands dismissed.

¶41

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

gab List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

Sri. Karthik. C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Karthik. C v. the 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

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavant S/O Basavanneppa Nelagali Vs the Chairman

H.Soubhagyamma Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op Societies

Smt.Wahida W/O Aslam Mulla Vs the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs (Auqaf)

Shri.Arun S/O Shetuppa Patil Vs the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs (Auqaf)

Shri. Aslam S/O. Gouse Mohiddin Madiwal Vs the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs (Auqaf)