Allowed

Sri. Sumedh Prashanth Chaphekar, v. State by

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2024WP/1939/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act. The court held that since the charge sheet did not allege the money was stolen or fraudulently obtained, a duty to account did not arise, and proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed criminal proceedings (C.C.No.800/2023) and ordered release of seized amount to the petitioner.

Sri. Sumedh Prashanth Chaphekar, Vs State by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:4924 WP No. 1939 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION NO. 1939 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SUMEDH PRASHANTH CHAPHEKAR S/O DR. PRASHANTH DATTATREYA CHAPHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R.AT NO.102, GAJANAN C-HOUSING SOCIETY, AMBODI ROAD, VAA, PALGAR DISTRICT, PARBHANI MAHARASTRA, MAHARASTRA - 431 511.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE BY IMANGALA P.S., IMANGALA CIRCLE, SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE - 571 218. REPRESENTED BY HCGP.

¶14

GIRISH YADAV S/O PATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, VGFG COLLEGE, HIRIYUR TOWN, CHITRADURA - 577 511.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA A., HCGP FOR R1/STATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:4924 WP No. 1939 of 2024

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 27.03.23 REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.0050/23 BY THE R1 POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HIRIYUR FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 98 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1, under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with 482 of CR.P.C., for quashing the charge sheet in C.C.No.800/2023 arising out of Crime No.50/2023 registered by the Imangala Police station, for the offence punishable under Section 98 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred as “KP Act”), on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyuru.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.2.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2/Girish Yadav who was posted for election special duty,

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4924 WP No. 1939 of 2024

¶24

during the Karnataka Assembly Election in 2023 and a vehicle belonging to the petitioner was intercepted and said to have found Rs.2,75,000/- in his possession. The petitioner has not accounted for the same. Hence, they seized the same, obtained the permission of Magistrate, registered FIR and filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 98 of KP Act, which is under challenge.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contented, in order to attract section 98 of KP Act, the petitioner must have stolen the said seized property or used the same for fraudulent purpose. However, nothing has been mentioned in the charge sheet. The petitioner’s father is a doctor, also he is a film producer. He has received the amount from his father and he was carrying the same to Mumbai on the National Highway 48. The election flying squad seized the money. The said amount was belonging to petitioner’s family and the auditor also had given certificate in respect of the amount. Therefore, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶26

Per contra, learned HCGP objected the same and contented that the petitioner has not given satisfactory

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:4924 WP No. 1939 of 2024

¶29

explanation to the police. Therefore, charge sheet came to be filed.

¶30

Having heard the arguments perused the records. It is not in dispute that the petitioner while travelling in car, was intercepted and seized the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- from his possession. Of course, he has not given satisfactory explanation, at that time. However, the petitioner produced the Audit Certificate, to show that this amount belongs to his father and was given to this petitioner. As per section 98 of KP Act, where the offence is only punishable when the person is in possession or converse in any manner, or offers for sale, anything which is reason to believe that it is a stolen property or property fraudulently obtained, then only it is punishable. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in case of State of Karnataka

¶31

Vs P.Gopalakrishna Panikar reported in ILR 1991 KAR

¶32

1539 where the Hon’ble Division Bench had held at paragraph No.4, it is held as under;

¶33

“4. So far as the charge levelled in respect of Articles 39 to 145, it may be noticed that even in the charge-sheet and the

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4924 WP No. 1939 of 2024

¶35

accusation, there is absolutely no mention that there was reason to believe that they were stolen properties or properties fraudulently obtained. Before a person could be expected to account for possession of any such article within the meaning of Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, it must be established that there is reason to believe that the same is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained. When there is not even a whisper, of this ingredient in the case there was no duty enjoined on the respondent to account for the possession of these articles and not accounting for the same cannot be held to be an offence within the meaning of the above said Section. Therefore, in any view of the matter, it is clear that there could be no grievance against the acquittal of the respondent, and hence, there is no merit in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”

¶36

Here in this case, the Election Squad had seized the

¶37

amount which was carried by him, during the time when there was enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, during the

¶38

election. Except that, there is no allegation against the petitioner, for having obtained it fraudulently or carrying the

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:4924 WP No. 1939 of 2024

¶41

same for disbursing to any voters during the election. Such being the case, continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner requires to be quashed.

¶42

Accordingly, this petition is allowed .

¶43

Consequently, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.800/2023 arising out of Crime No.50/2023 registered by the Imangala Police station, on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyuru, is hereby quashed.

¶44

The amount seized by the police is ordered to be released

¶45

to the petitioner.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT:SK

Sri. Sumedh Prashanth Chaphekar, v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sumedh Prashanth Chaphekar, v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramesh Malli Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Origin D- Fab Pvt. Ltd, Vs Sri B N Ramachandra Reddy

D. Manju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Apsar Khan @ Appi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Ummer Farooq Vs the State

A Adinarayana Reddy Vs S.Vijayalakshmi