Quashed

Mr. Manjunatha v. the Director General of Police

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2024WP/10389/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, distributors of Dhanavanthri Ayurvedic products, sought quashing of an FIR under Section 420 IPC alleging they cheated the public by issuing identity cards for a fee with false earnings promises. Finding the complainant not aggrieved and no dishonest inducement to deliver property made out, the High Court quashed the FIR proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.70/2020 of Bhadravathi Old Town Police Station under Section 420 IPC quashed; pending applications disposed.

Mr. Manjunatha Vs the Director General of Police — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.10389 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.MANJUNATHA

¶9

S/O LATE HALAPPA

¶10

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT

¶11

HALLIKERE

¶12

BARANDUR POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK 577245

¶13

MR.SHASHIDHARA K

¶14

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶15

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

MANAGING DIRECTOR SWS MARKETING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED RESIDING AT

¶17

DATTHATHREYA NILAYA

¶18

2^ND CROSS, BEHIND ZILLA PANCHAYAT SHIVAMOGGA - 577245

¶19

SMT. VINUTHA P W/O SHASHIDHAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS DIRECTOR

¶20

SWS MARKETING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED RESIDING AT

¶21

DATTHATHREYA NILAYA

¶22

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶23

2^ND CROSS, BEHIDN ZILLA PANCHAYAT SHIVAMOGGA - 577245

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI.SUNIL KUMAR H, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560001

¶28

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B.H. ROAD POLICE QUARTERS SHIVAMOGGA - 577202

¶29

MR.SHIVA NANJAPPA CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BHADRAVATI TOWN POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA – 577301

¶30

MR.SURESH S/O TAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT KENCHANAHALLAI VILLAGE MAVINAKERE POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 573211

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.3)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶34

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶35

QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.70/2020 IN BHADRAVATHI OLD TOWN POLICE STATION FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND A1 AND ETC.

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEAERING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.70/2020 registered in Bhadravathi Old Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and a mandamus is

¶39

also sought to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take action against respondent No.3.

¶40

Facts leading to the case are as under;

¶41

Respondent No.4 – Defacto Complainant has

¶42

lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional Police Station alleging that petitioners, without any permission from the competent Authorities, are issuing Identity Cards by collecting fee of Rs.3,000/- from the public at large with a

¶43

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶44

false assurance that they would earn Rs.5,000/- on the sales of Ayurvedic Products of one Dhanavanthari Health Care Ayurvedic Company. Respondent No.4 has further alleged that medical products of Dhanavanthari Health Care Company are found to be hazardous and are causing various health problems to the persons, who are consuming the tablets and medical products sold by the said Dhanavanthari Health Care Company through petitioners. On these set of allegations, the complaint is lodged alleging that petitioners are guilty of cheating the public at large. Based on the complaint lodged against the petitioners, crime is registered in Crime No.70/2020 of Bhadravathi Old Town Police Station.

¶45

Petitioner No.1, who is the business Development Officer of SWS Marketing Solutions Private Limited and petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the Directors of the said company, have filed the captioned writ petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶48

quashing of the FIR and complaint registered in Crime

¶49

No.70/2020 in Bhadravathi Old Town Police Station.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶51

reiterating the grounds urged in the captioned writ petition would vehemently argue and contend that the allegations in the complaint are totally vague and respondent No.4 is not an affected person and the complaint is virtually intended to address the grievance of public at large. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to the legal notice dated 30.07.2020 issued by the petitioners would contend that the complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.4 is tainted with malafides. As a counter to the legal notice, respondent No.3, at the instance of respondent No.4, has registered a frivolous complaint. He would point out that petitioners are selling the products of Dhanavanthari Health Care Ayurvedic Company and they being the distributors of the said company cannot be held liable and cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Countering the allegations, he

¶52

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶53

would point out that the petitioners’ company is duly registered and possesses a Certificate from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. Since the petitioners are only acting as distributors of Ayurvedic Products, the entire allegations even if accepted in entirety will not constitute any offence against the petitioners herein. Therefore, he would point that if the proceedings are not quashed, the same would amount to abuse of process.

¶54

Per contra , the learned HCGP would, however, point out that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners and therefore, at this juncture, the proceedings cannot be quashed by having recourse to Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Though Defacto Complainant, who is arrayed as respondent No.4 is served, has not chosen to contest the proceedings.

¶55

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶58

Before I advert to the facts of the case on

¶59

hand, I deem it fit to cull out the complaint that is lodged by respondent No.4. The same reads as under;

¶60

“�ಾನ� ಸ�ಇ��ೆಕ��ರವರು ಹ�ೇನಗರ��ೕ��ಾ�ೆ ಭ�ಾ�ವ� .

¶61

ಇಂದ : ಸು"ೇ#$�ತ&'(ೌಡ ಸು�ಾರು 54 ವಷ, -ಾಸ : .ೆಂ/ೇನಹ01 (ಾ�ಮ, �ಾ4ನ.ೆ"ೆ ಅಂ/ೆ , ಭ�ಾ�ವ�6ಾಲೂ9ಕು ªÉÆ: 8971160599

¶62

«gÀÄzÀÝ

¶63

ಆ"ೋ;ತರು :

¶64

1. ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ©£ï <ೇ=>ಾಲಪ@ ಸು�ಾರು 40 ವಷ, -ಾಸ : ಹ01.ೆ"ೆ , Aಾರಂದೂರು ಭ�ಾ�ವ�6ಾಲೂ9ಕು . ªÉÆ : 9845669362 ಕBೇC4�ಾಸ : ಕ<ೆ9ೕಶEರFಲಯ , ನಂHFAೇಕCಎದುರು ಸ.ಾ,Cಆಸ@6ೆ� ರJೆK , ಭ�ಾ�ವ� .

¶65

2) eÉ. J¥sï.JA.±À²zsÀgï.PÉ ¹.E.N & JA.r ಎ� . ಡಬು9Mಎ��ಾ.ೆ,NಂOಸಲೂಷ�� ೆP . � . " ದ6ಾK6ೆ�ೕಯFಲಯ , 2 £ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï, 2£ÉÃ ¸ÀªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ರJೆK ,

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶68

Q<ಾ9ಪಂ/ಾR�SಂTಾಗ , UವVಗW . ªÉÆ : 9902679565, 9108843166,9102248166

¶69

3) ²æÃªÀÄw.«£ÀÄvÁ.¦, Crä£ï, ಎ� . ಡಬು9Mಎ��ಾ.ೆ,NಂOಸಲೂಷ�� ೆP . � ., ಮಲವ(ೊಪ@ , ಯಲವN� (ಾ�ಮ

¶70

UವVಗW6ಾಲೂ9ಕು . ªÉÆ : 9740668166

¶71

�ಾನ�"ೆ ,

¶72

4ಷಯ : Jಾವ,ಜFಕC(ೆ ಶುಗ� , >ೆಣು[ಮಕ\ಳ-ಾ�H(ೆ , ಗಂಡು ಮಕ\0(ೆ ಪ^ರುಷತE ವೃHಸಲು ಇ6ಾ�aಗ0(ೆ ಆಯು-ೇ,ದ ಕಂ�ೆFಯ >ೆಸರ�9 ಸEತಃ cದಪdcದ ಆ"ೋಗ� >ಾFeಾದಔಷaಗಳನುg Fೕdವಂhಸು�Kರುವಬ(ೆW .

¶73

&ೕಲ\ಂಡ 4ಷಯ.ೆ\ ಸಂಬಂacದಂ6ೆ . ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮj�9 ದೂರು ಸ�9ಸುವ^�ೇkೆಂದ"ೆ ; &ೕಲ\ಂಡ 1 Cಂದ 3 kೇ ಆ"ೋ;ಗಳl ಸ.ಾ,C ಆಸ@6ೆ� ರJೆK, ನಂHF AೇಕC ಮುಂTಾಗ , ಕ<ೆ9ೕಶEರ Fಲಯ _,_ ಭ�ಾ�ವ�ಯ�9 ಎ� _._ ಡಬು9Mಎ� �ಾ.ೆ,NಂOಸಲೂಷ�� ೆP _._ � _.,_ ¸ÉÌöÊ -ೇJಾ�gïìಎಂಬ>ೆಸCನಕಂ�ೆFಯಔಷaಎಂದು >ೇ0.ೊಂಡು eಾವ^�ೇ ಪರ-ಾನm ಪnೆಯ�ೇ ಅನaೕಕೃತ-ಾm ಪ�� ಐ . d . ರೂ .3000/- ರಂ6ೆ ಹೂd.ೆ�ಾರCಂದ ಹಣ ಪnೆದು ಅವC(ೆ ಸಂTಾವkೆeಾm /ೈ� �ಂq ಮೂಲಕ Fಮ(ೆ Hನrಂದ.ೆ\ ರೂ .5000/- ಗಳವ"ೆ(ೆ ಆ�ಾಯ �ೊ"ೆಯುತK�ೆ ಎಂಬು�ಾmನಂ$cನsjಂದ ಹಣ ಪnೆದು JಾಮೂSಕ-ಾmVೕಸ�ಾಡು�Kರುವ^ದು ನಮj ಗಮನ.ೆ\ ಬಂH�ೆ . ಸದCಯವರುನಮ(ೆ ಅಲ9�ೇ , ಧನಂಜಯ$�ಪಂ/ಾuರಯ� ರ&ೕಶ$��ಾಪಣ[ , ನರcಂಹಮೂ�,$�<ೇ=ಚಂದ�ಪ@ _,_ ಅರುw$�Uವ"ಾx _,_ yೇಖ� _,_ ಸು"ೇ# _,_ ಚಂದ�yೇಖರ _,_ ಪ^ಷ@ .ೋಂ ಕೃಷ[ _,_ Uಲ@ _,_ .ೆಂ/ೇನಹ01 ಮತುK ಇತರರು >ಾಗೂ ಭ�ಾ�ವ� ಆನ-ೇC ಅರಸನಘಟ� , ತCೕ.ೆ"ೆ , ಲಕ\ವ01 , $ೕರೂರು , ಈ ಕಡೂರು ಇ6ಾ�aಊರುಗಳ�9ಯೂಸಹಇ�ೇCೕ�ಅಂ�ಾಜು 600 ಐ . dಗ0(ೆ ರೂ .18 ಲu~\ಂತ >ೆಚು• , ಲ€ಾಂತರಹಣವನುg ಸಂಗ�ಹ�ಾdಹಣವನುg �ೋhವಂhಸು�Kರುವಬ(ೆW ನಮj ಗಮನ.ೆ\ ಈಗ �0ದು ಬಂHರುತK�ೆ ಸದCಯವರು Fರು�ೊ�ೕm ಯುವಕC(ೆ >ಾಗೂ ಯುವ�ಯC(ೆ ಸEತಂತ� ಉ�ೊ�ೕಗ �ೊ"ೆಯುತK�ೆ >ಾಗೂ �ಾ>ೆeಾನ ಸಂಬಳ ರೂ . 35,000/- .ೊಡು6ೆKೕ-ೆ ಎಂಬು�ಾಗ , >ಾಗೂ ಅವರುಗಳl ಈ(ಾಗ<ೇ 37,000 ಜನC(ೆ ಸEಯಂ ಉ�ೊ�ೕಗ Fೕdರು6ೆKೕ-ೆ ಎಂಬು�ಾm ಸುಳl1 ಆyಾEಸkೆ Fೕd ನ&jಲ9ರನುg ವಂhcರು6ಾK"ೆ .

¶74

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶76

ಸದCಯವರು ಭ�ಾ�ವ� 6ಾಲೂ9ಕು , .ೆಂ/ೇನಹ01 (ಾ�ಮ �ಾ4ನ .ೆgÉ ಅಂ/ೆಯ�9ರುವ ನನg ಮkೆಯ ಹ�Kರ ಅ�ಾಯಕkಾದ ನನ(ೆ ಸುಳl1 ಭರವJೆ Fೕd ನFgಂದ ರೂ 3,000/- ಗಳನುg ಪnೆದು.ೊಂಡು ನನ(ೆ ಐ . d . ನಂ . ಎ� . .ೆ .1135295 Jೇಪ,nೆ Hkಾಂಕ : 05/07/2020 ಎಂಬು�ಾmರUೕaಯನುg .ೊN�ರು6ಾK"ೆ .

¶77

ಅ�ೇ Cೕ� PÉA/ೇನಹ01 (ಾ�ಮದ -ಾceಾದ ರ&ೕಶ EªÀgÀ K.r.£ÀA.J¸ï.PÉ. 1074441 gÀÆ.3000/- ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05/07/2020 ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ಪnೆHರು6ಾK"ೆ .

¶78

ಅವರ �ಾತುಗಳನುg ನಂ$ kಾನು ನನ(ೆ ಪCಚಯಸ‚ರ ಮೂಲಕ ಇ�ೇ Cೕ� 278 ಜನCಂದಸದಸ�ತEವನುg ಪnೆದುಅವC(ೆ ಪ�6ೆ�ೕಕಐ . d . ಗಳನುg Fೕdರು6ಾK"ೆ .

¶79

ನಮ(ೆ eಾCಗೂ ಸಹ ಅವರು �0cದಂ6ೆ eಾವ^�ೇ ಹಣ ಅದCಂದ ಮರು ಸಂ�ಾಯ-ಾmರುವ^Hಲ9JಾಮೂSಕ-ಾmನಮ(ೆ Vೕಸ�ಾdರು6ಾK"ೆ .

¶80

ಅವರು Fೕಡು�Kರುವ^ದು ಔಷaಗಳl ಬಳ.ೆ�ಾರರ ಆ"ೋಗ�ದ &ೕ<ೆ ದುಷ@C�ಾಮ $ೕರು�Kರುವ ದೂರುಗಳl ಬಂHರುತK-ೆ _._ >ಾಗೂ >ೆಣು[ ಮಕ\0(ೆ ಅವರ ;ೕCಯƒ� ನ�9 ವ�6ಾ�ಸಉಂ„ಾಗು�K�ೆ . ಮತುKಆ"ೋಗ�ದ&ೕ<ೆ ವ��CಕKಪC�ಾಮ$ೕC>ೊಸ�ಾm ಸಮJೆ�ಗಳlಉಲ…ಣ(ೊಳl1�K�ೆ .

¶81

ಈ ಕಂ�ೆFಯ ಬ(ೆW 4/ಾರ �ಾಡ<ಾm ಸದCಯವರು Fೕdರುವ ಇ�ಕx „ಾ�q� ನಂಬ� ಸಹ ಡೂ;9.ೇ= ಆmರುತK�ೆ _._ ಮತುK ಸದC >ೆಸCನ�9ರುವ ಕಂ�ೆFಯ ಸ.ಾ,ರHಂದ ಅನುVೕದkೆ ಪnೆHರುವ^Hಲ9 >ಾಗೂ eಾವ^�ೇ >ೆ†K ಸ;9&ಂಟC ವಸುKಗಳlಅdಷನ†ಡ�Oಕಂ„ೊ�ೕಲ�ಮೂಲಕ�ಾನ�6ೆ ಪnೆHರುವ^Hಲ9 .

¶82

ಸದCಯವರು Fೕಡು�Kರುವ ಔಷaಗಳ &ೕ<ೆ eಾವ^�ೇ 4ವರಗಳನುg ಅಂದ"ೆ ಉ6ಾ@ಧkೆ 6ಾCೕಖು _,_ ಅದರ ಆ‡ೈರು ಅವaಗಳನುg >ಾಗೂ ಕಂ�ೆFಯ<ೋ(ೋ ಸಹ ಮುH�cರುವ^Hಲ9 . Tಾರತ ಸ.ಾ,ರHಂದ ಅನುಮ� ಪತ�ವನುg ಸಹ ನಕಲು �ಾdರು6ಾK"ೆ . ಅವರು Fೕdರುವ ಎ<ಾ9 �ಾಖ<ೆಗಳl ನಕಲು �ಾಖ<ೆಗ�ಾmದುˆ , Jಾವ,ಜFಕರನುg JಾಮೂSಕ-ಾmವಂhcVೕಸ�ಾಡು�K�ಾˆ"ೆ .

¶83

ಈ&ೕ�ನಂ6ೆ JಾಮೂSಕ-ಾmವಂhಸು�Kರುವ&ೕಲ\ಂಡಆ"ೋ;ಗಳನುg �ಾ�ೆ(ೆ ಕ"ೆRc ಸೂಕK ತF‡ೆ �ಾd ಅವರು ನsjಂದ ಐ . d kೆಪದ�9 ವಸೂ� �ಾd.ೊಂಡ ಹಣವನುg ಅವCಂದ ನಮ(ೆ .ೊdc.ೊಟ� ಅವರ &ೕ<ೆ ಅವರು �ಾಡು�Kರುವ Vೕಸ ವಂಚkೆ ಆ‰ಾರದ&ೕ<ೆ ಕŠಣ.ಾನೂನುಕ�ಮಜರುmcಅವರನುg U‹ಸAೇ.ೆಂದುಅವರ

¶84

10 -

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶86

ಸರಬ"ಾಜು �ಾಡು�Kರುವ 4ಷಔಷaಗ0ಂದ ಮನುಷ�ರ &ೕ<ೆ ಆಗು�Kರುವ ದುಷ@C�ಾಮಗಳನುg ತnೆಯAೇ.ೆಂದುಈಮೂಲಕ �ಾ�Œ,c.ೊಳl16ೆKೕ-ೆ .

¶87

EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ Bಾeಾ hತ� , ಮತುK ಅವರು ನಮ(ೆ Fೕdದ„ಾ�q� ಇkಾE•� , .ೇಂದ� ಸ.ಾ,ರHಂದ ಪnೆದ ಪ��ಾಣ ಪತ� >ಾಗೂ ಇFgತ"ೆ ಸೃŽ�ತ �ಾಖ<ೆಗಳನುg ನಮj ಅವ(ಾಹkೆ ಮತುKಮುಂHನಕ�ಮ.ಾ\mಲಗ�Kc�ೆ .”

¶88

If the allegations in the complaint are looked

¶89

into, two vital aspects arise for consideration before this Court. In the first part of the complaint, respondent No.4 – Complainant alleges that petitioners are issuing Identity Card by collecting fee of Rs.3,000/- with an assurance that the members, who are voluntarily selling Dhanavanthri Ayurvedic Products, will end up earning Rs.5,000/- per day. The complainant further alleges that the petitioners’ company has issued around 600 Identity Cards and have enriched themselves by amassing a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-. The second part of the complaint gives an indication that the company products are causing side effects to the patients, who have taken medicines of Dhanvanthri Company.

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶92

On examining these allegations, what can be

¶93

gathered is that respondent No.4 is not an aggrieved person. The crime is registered on behalf of the public indicating that public at large are cheated by the petitioners. The grievance of respondent No.4 is that Ayurvedic Products sold by the petitioners do not contain manufacturing date and it does not possesses Company Logo and also do not indicate that these products are sold with prior permission of Union of India. The complaint also gives an indication that Dhanavantri is the company that distributes Ayurvedic Products. The allegations in the complaint culled out supra clearly gives an indication that respondent No.4 has lodged a complaint on behalf of the public at large. Therefore, even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are accepted in entirety, then this Court is more than satisfied that the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are not made out in the present set of facts and circumstances of the case. As per Section 420 of IPC, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, can

¶94

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶95

be said to have committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, to make out a case against a person for

¶96

the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person. The complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.4 in all probability gives an indication that the same is filed with an ulterior motive. The allegations in the complaint lacks bonafides and no offence is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is more than satisfied that if the proceedings are not quashed, the same would amount to abuse of process and

¶97

the petitioners have to undergo long ordeal of criminal prosecution. Therefore, I am of the view that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶98

Hence, I pass the following;

¶99

ORDER

¶100

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part .

¶101

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:681 WP No. 10389 of 2020

¶102

(ii) The proceedings pending in Crime No.70/2020 registered in Bhadravathi Old Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC are hereby quashed.

¶103

(iii) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶104

Sd/JUDGE

¶105

NBM

¶106

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Mr. Manjunatha v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Manjunatha v. the Director General of Police

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

Sri Jnanananda S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chaitanya R M Vs Karnataka Legislatie Aseembly Secreariat

Dr. H Shivananda Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Latha Gothi Vs State by Siddapura Police

Sri H R Nagaraj Vs the State by

Vinod Vs State of Karnataka