Mahadev Shekappa Baanad Vs the State of Karnataka

AGE: 28 EYARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O: HOSALLI VILLAGE, GADAG TALUKA, KARNATAKA, PARMANANT ADDRESS HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, MUNDHAL TALUKA, MAHALINGPURA – 587 312.

¶11

SRINIVAS

¶12

S/O. BHASKR RAO BANDLA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O: SONDUR TALUK, RAICHUR KARNATAKA – 583 119.

¶13

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

MANJUNATH S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O: KATKOL VILLAGE RAMDURGA TALUK: BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA, PIN CODE: 591 114.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI L. S. SULLAD, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4416 CRL.P No. 103347 of 2023

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH CIRCLE INSPECTOR MUDHOL, MAHALINGAPUR P.S. REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶21

BUDANSAAB S/O. HUSSAINSAAB NADAF, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR, R/O: DOWLDESHWAR ROAD FORMHOUSE, MAHALINGAPUR, BAGALKOT KARNATAKA – 587 312.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1;

¶24

NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. (528(BNSS)), SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN MAHALINGPUR POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 131/2014, C.C.NO. 216/2022 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BANAHATTI ALLEGING OFFENCE P/U/SEC. UNDER SECTIONS 420, 511 OF IPC. PASS ANY OTHER RELIEF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

¶27

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4416 CRL.P No. 103347 of 2023

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 under

¶33

Section 482 of Cr.PC praying to quash the chargesheet filed in Mahalingapur Police Station under Crime No.131/2014 pending in CC No.216/2022 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 511 and 420 of IPC.

¶34

Column No.17 of the chargesheet filed against the petitioners and others indicate that all the accused persons with an intention to cheat the complainant showed him one copper pot which is covered with carbon sheets and stated that it is rice pulley and in the olden days if the copper pot has sustained lightening, it gets godly power and if the complainant keeps it with him, he will get good results and it attracts the customers and attempted to sell the same to the complainant for Rs.1,00,000/- and committed an offence punishable under Section 511 and 420 of IPC. The said charge sheet is sought to be quashed in the present petition.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4416 CRL.P No. 103347 of 2023

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶38

and the learned Additional Government Advocate for

¶39

respondent No.1-State.

¶40

In spite of service of notice respondent No.2

¶41

remained absent and unrepresented.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the offence of cheating has not been completed and there is no attempt to commit cheating as the accused persons have not received any money from the complainant and they have offered to sell a copper pot to the complainant and it does not amount to cheating. On the point urged, he placed reliance on the decision of this

¶43

Court in the case of Deepa Vs. Madhav and Another passed in Crl.P No.101300/2017 decided on 18.08.2020. He further submits that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a abuse of process of law, as the acts of the petitioners does not attracts the offence alleged against them. With this he prays to allow the petition.

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4416 CRL.P No. 103347 of 2023

¶46

Learned Additional Government Advocate would

¶47

contend that the petitioners and the other accused have been caught red handed by the Police when they made an attempt to cheat the complainant by offering a copper pot saying that it is having a godly power and quoting price of Rs.1,00,000/- and the said copper pot has been seized. There are eye-witnesses to the said incident who are the private persons and also the Police officials. On perusal of the entire chargesheet, there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and other accused for the offences alleged against them. With this he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has perused the material placed on record.

¶49

8. The petitioners and other accused have been

¶50

caught red handed along with a copper pot when they attempted to sell the same to the complainant stating that it is a rice pulley, having a godly power and it attracts customers. CWs.4 to 12 are the eye-witnesses to the said incident of attempt by the petitioners and other accused

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4416 CRL.P No. 103347 of 2023

¶52

persons to sell the copper pot to the complainant. If the complainant had paid Rs.1,00,000/- as offered by the petitioners and purchased the said copper pot, then the offence under Section 420 of IPC would have been completed. As the offence is not completed, it is alleged that the petitioners and other accused have attempted to commit cheating. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court, wherein it is observed as under;

¶53

“6. An offence of cheating is defined under Section 415 of IPC. The ingredients of Section 415 are:

¶54

(1) Deception of any person.

¶55

(2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person-

¶56

(i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or

¶57

(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

¶58

7. ‘Deceive’ is one of the ingredients of offence of cheating. ‘Delivery of any property’ is another ingredient of cheating. Respondent No.1-

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4416 CRL.P No. 103347 of 2023

¶60

complainant has not been deceived and he has not parted with any property i.e., investment of Rs.50,000/- with the petitioners. The act of the petitioners making a phone call and inducing him to invest Rs.50,000/- by purchasing a insurance policy from Exide Insurance Company and promising of taking him to Singapore tour free of cost is an offer. If the complainant parts with the said money and purchases the insurance policy and thereafter if the petitioners does not fulfill their promise of taking him to Singapore tour, then, the said act amounts to cheating. Therefore, the act of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 does not attract offence of cheating or attempting to cheat punishable under Section 420 and 511 of IPC respectively.”

¶61

The facts of the said case are different, wherein

¶62

the petitioners have induced the complainant to purchase the insurance policy promising him to take to Singapore for free of cost. In the case on hand, the petitioners and

¶63

other accused persons physically went to the complainant, shown him a copper pot and told him that it is having godly power and it attracts customers and promotes him to purchase the same for Rs.1,00,000/-. At that time, the petitioners and other accused persons caught red handed

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4416 CRL.P No. 103347 of 2023

¶65

along with the said copper pot. Considering the said aspect, the chargesheet contains the material against the petitioners for trial of offence punishable under Sections 511 and 420 of IPC. The petitioners have not made out any grounds for quashing the chargesheet as prayed. In the result, the petition is dismissed .

¶66

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶67

PJ/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Mahadev Shekappa Baanad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev Shekappa Baanad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irayya S/O Madiwalayya Hiremath Vs Shiddalingayyaswamy B Hiremath

Shri. Ramesh S/O Mallikarjun Yallanaikar Vs Shri. Mallikarjun S/O Yallappa Amati

S Nagaraj S/O Late Rangaswamy Vs Smt Shan Khatoon W/O Mohammed Riyaz

Nagaraj S/O Choori Hanmantappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Usha Rani W/O S.V. Balakrishna Vs State of Karnataka

Salimahammad Alias Nannemiya Vs the State of Karnataka