Allowed

Gandhimathi a v. State by

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024WP/29462/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, shown as accused No.6 in a chit fund cheating FIR solely as wife of accused No.2 with no specific overt act alleged against her, sought quashing of FIR No.0193/2019. The court held registration was without substance and quashed the FIR insofar as it related to her.

What did the court decide?

FIR Crime No.0193/2019 registered by Indiranagar police station quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner-accused No.6.

Gandhimathi a Vs State by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:9066 WP No.29462 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.29462 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

GANDHIMATHI .A, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O. MR. M. APPUKUTTY, R/AT NO.3358/C, 13TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560008. (FEMALE: WRONGLY SHOWN AS MALE IN FIR)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA, ADV., FOR

¶11

SRI. PRANAV VENKAT VISHWANATH, ADV.,)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, 6-48/L, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BINNAMANGALA, HOYSALA NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560038.

¶14

MR. VENKATARAMNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, R/AT NO.438/1, 2ND CROSS, 6TH MAIN, HAL 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560075.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1 V/O DATED 01.02.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:9066 WP No.29462 of 2023

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SECTION 482 OF CPC, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT BEARING NO.0193/2019 DATED 14.08.2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTION 76 OF THE CHIT FUNDS ACT, 1982 ON THE FILE OF R1 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM THAT HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT DATED 14.08.2019 (ANNEXURE-B) BEFORE THE X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE CITY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The 2^nd respondent lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioner-accused No.6 and other accused who are the Directors of Shubhadrasi Chits (Karnataka) Private Limited, induced the 2^nd respondent to invest in the chit fund, and in all invested a sum of Rs.5,10,000/-, and when he requested the petitioner and other accused for returning the money invested by him, the petitioner and other accused absconded and the premises in which the business was carried was locked.

¶23

It is further alleged that the said Private Limited Company is due crores of rupees to a large number of people. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B r/w 34 of IPC and Section 76 r/w 79 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 and Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:9066 WP No.29462 of 2023

¶26

Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Taking exception to the registration of FIR, this petition is filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused No.6 has been implicated only on the ground that she is the wife of accused No.2 who is allegedly to be the Director of the Chit fund company, and in the absence of any allegation disclosing commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner herein, the registration of the FIR is without any substance.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the allegation made in the FIR discloses the commission of cognizance offences against the petitioner and the veracity of the allegation requires to be investigated, and at this stage, the registration of the FIR does not warrant any interference.

¶29

Considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

Perusal of the FIR indicated that there is no allegation that the petitioner either in the capacity of the Director or Officer incharge of the day-to-day affairs of the Chit fund company has induced the second respondent to invest money with an intention to cheat, except that she is the wife of accused No.2. Therefore, when there is no specific overtact against the petitioner herein that she along with other accused induced the second respondent to invest

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:9066 WP No.29462 of 2023

¶33

money with an intention to cheat, the registration of the FIR is without any substance, and the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of the process of law.

¶34

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶37

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.0193/2019, registered by the Indiranagar police station, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the petitioner-accused No.6 herein stands quashed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:9066 WP No.29462 of 2023

¶42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶43

[GANDHIMATHI A VS. STATE BY AND ANOTHER]

¶44

HCJ

¶45

02.04.2024

¶46

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶47

ORDER

¶48

In the Operative portion of the order dated 05.03.2024 in page No.2 at para No.1 in third line instead of Indiranagar Chit Fund Private Limited is wrongly mentioned as Shubhadrasi Chits (Karnataka) Private Limited. Hence, the same is corrected as "Indiranagar Chit Funds Private Limited" and in the same para fifth line Rs.5,10,000/- is wrongly mentioned and the same is corrected as "Rs.8,00,000/-". At page No.2 para No.2 Offence punishable under Sections is wrongly mentioned as 406, 420, 120B R/w 34 of IPC and Section 76 r/w 79 and the same is corrected as Section "420 of IPC and Section 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982".

¶49

This order may be read in conjunction with the order dated 05.03.2024. Registry to effect necessary corrections.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Gandhimathi a v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandhimathi a v. State by

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

M/S Hotel Mallige Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Suryodaya Educational Trust Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri J Magesh Vs the Executive Engineer (v)

M S Jagadeesh Kumar Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Sri. a.v.Nagaraj Vs Sri. Jeevithesh M.S

Razorpay Software Private Limited Vs Union of India