Allowed¶6

Sachin Menakudale v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2025CRL.P/100339/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad; CRL.P 100339/2025; Hemant Chandangoudar J.; FIR quashing; Crime No. 0181/2024; Malamaruthi Police Station; JMFC-II Belagavi; Section 98 Karnataka Police Act 1963; Sections 111(3) and 111(7) BNS 2023; unaccounted cash Rs. 2,73,27,500 transported in vehicle; registration of FIR at first instance mandatory; Station House Diary entry; vitiation of investigation; cognizance; abuse of process; S. 482 Cr.P.C.; S. 528 BNSS 2023.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 0181/2024 registered by Malamaruthi Police Station, pending on the file of JMFC-II, Belagavi, in respect of the petitioners. ¶6

Sachin Menakudale Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3694 CRL.P No. 100339 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100339 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SACHIN MENAKUDALE S/O. NARAYANA MENAKUDALE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. DALGAUN VILLAGE, TQ. KAVTEMANAKAL, SANGALI, DISTRICT. SANGALI, MAHARASHTRA-416405.

¶8

MARUTI MARGUDE S/O. SUKHADEV MARGUDE, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. KURUB @ KARAGANI, TQ. ATAPADI,

¶9

DISTRICT. SANGALI, MAHARASHTRA-416413.

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.28 12:29:40 +0530

¶11

AKSHAY SAIT S/O. GANPATI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NAGAJ, TQ. AND DISTRICT. SANGALI, MAHARASHTRA-416403.

¶12

KISHOR BAHU S/O. PRATHAP RAO PATIL AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O. SANGALI, TQ. AND DISTRICT. SANGALI, MAHARASHTRA-416406.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. AVINASH M.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MALAMARUTHI POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3694 CRL.P No. 100339 of 2025

¶19

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011.

¶20

NANDISHWAR KUMAR AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. POLICE INSPECTOR, CCB (POLICE OFFICER), R/O. CITY CRIME BRANCH, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA-590001, REP/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, H.C. DHARWAD-580011.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR IN CRIME NO. 0181/2024 REGISTERED BY MALAMARUTHI POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC-II BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 111(3), 111(7) OF BNS-2023 AND SEC. 98 OF KP ACT-1963 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶28

The petitioners/accused challenge the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 111(3) and 111(7) of BNS, 2023 and Section 98 of the KP Act, 1963.

¶29

The prosecution alleges that, upon receiving credible information that the petitioners had transported unaccounted money in a vehicle, the complainant and his staff intercepted the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3694 CRL.P No. 100339 of 2025

¶32

vehicle. Upon inspection, it was found that the petitioners had transported a sum of Rs.2,73,27,500 in a vehicle without providing any account for the money.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶34

The prosecution further alleges that, although the petitioners transported a sum of Rs.2,73,27,500 in a vehicle, the charge-sheet material does not establish that the amount was suspected to be stolen. For the offences under Section 98 of the KP Act, 1963 to be cognizable, the complainant, upon receiving credible information, was obliged to register the FIR at the first instance and record the information in the Station House Diary, particularly in cases where there is a risk that the accused might abscond or destroy evidence. In the instant case, the complainant neither registered the FIR nor recorded the information in the Station House Diary. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation without registering the FIR at the first instance vitiates the investigation, which culminated in taking cognizance of the offence. The prosecution has not provided any material to substantiate that the money transported by the petitioners was suspected to be stolen. Although credible information was received, mere transportation of money in a vehicle does not constitute an offence under Section 98 of the KP Act, and the police’s failure to register the FIR at the first instance renders the continuation of the investigation an abuse of process of law.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3694 CRL.P No. 100339 of 2025

¶37

Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned FIR in Crime No. 0181/2024, registered by the Malamaruthi Police Station and pending on the file of the learned JMFC-II, Belagavi, is hereby quashed.

¶38

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶39

BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Sachin Menakudale v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Menakudale v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekbaba Alias Fruit Baba Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahanthesh Aliyas Malatesh Shubhasappa Marata Vs the State of Karnataka

Arun S/O Sharanappa Agadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Altaf Hussain Hallur Vs the State of Karnataka

Keerthi Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

Baseersab S/O Karimsab Mulla Vs State of Karnataka