Sri Hanumesh Alias Hanumanta S/O Late Ningappa Bandral Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:268 CRL.P No. 103744 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103744 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. HANUMESH @ HANUMANTA S/O. LATE NINGAPPA BANDRAL, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. CRAFTSMAN, R/O. HIREBENAKAL VILLAGE-583231, NOW AT. DEVARAJ URAS COLONY KOPPAL, KOPPAL CITY, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.21 07:28:51 +0530

¶12

SRI. MARUTI GULLARI P I AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. POLICE OFFICER, R/O. P I KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION, KOPPAL CITY-583231, R/BY SSP HIGH COURT, DHARWAD.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM KOPPAL IN CC NO.36/2021 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 420, 511, 120B OF IPC AND SECTION 7 OF SPECIFIED BANK NOTES (CESSATION OF LIABILITIES) ACT, IN CRIME NO.133/2020 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:268 CRL.P No. 103744 of 2024

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶21

The petitioner, accused No.6, is sought to be prosecuted for offenses punishable under Sections 420, 511, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 7 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2017”).

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that credible information was received that certain individuals were in possession of demonetized currency notes, which had been invalidated by the Government’s notification dated 8.11.2016. Upon conducting a search, it was discovered that accused Nos.1 to 6 were in possession of demonetized currency notes of ₹500 denomination. It is further alleged that the accused claimed the value of the notes would double if the notes were worshipped.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶24

It is undisputed that demonetized currency notes were allegedly recovered from accused Nos.1 to 6, and accused No.7 fled the scene during the search.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:268 CRL.P No. 103744 of 2024

¶26

To constitute an offense punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, it must be shown that a person induced another to part with property with an intention to cheat at the inception. In this case, there is no allegation that the petitioner induced anyone to part with property or currency notes with an intention to cheat. In the absence of the essential ingredients required to constitute an offense under Section 420 of the IPC, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the said offense lacks merit.

¶27

Contravention of Section 5 of the Act, 2017, is punishable with a fine and is classified as a non-cognizable offense. Under Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), police officers are required to obtain permission from the Magistrate before initiating an investigation into non-cognizable offenses. However, in the present case, the police conducted an investigation without obtaining the mandatory permission under Section 155(2) of the CrPC, rendering the investigation invalid.

¶28

In light of the above, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner, accused No.6, amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) The petition stands allowed.

¶31

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.36/2021 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Koppal, is

¶32