Dismissed¶46

Mr Maruthi @ Ramachandappa, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2025CRL.P/11636/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No.11636/2023, Karnataka High Court, 07.03.2025 (Mohammad Nawaz, J.): S.482 Cr.P.C quashing petition dismissed - absence of accused's name in FIR is no ground to quash; S.419/420 IPC; C.C.No.58811/2018, X ACMM Bengaluru; Crime No.566/2015 K.R. Puram PS; accused free to seek discharge before trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Merely because the petitioner's name does not appear in the FIR is not, by itself, a ground to quash the proceedings; the persons named in the FIR were transposed as prosecution witnesses (CWs.4, 5 and 6) in the charge sheet. ¶40

Mr Maruthi @ Ramachandappa, Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.58811/2018 pending before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru - including cognizance of offences under S.419 and S.420 IPC and issuance of process dated 29.10.2018 - ought to be quashed under S.482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶27

Ratio / Principle

¶40

Key takeaways

The petitioner's contention that he was not named in the FIR, was subsequently falsely implicated, and that the proceedings are an abuse of process of law cannot be accepted at this stage.ratio¶40
On investigation it was found that the petitioner himself engaged the three persons named in the FIR to collect electric charges by giving them the billing machine, which justified their transposition as prosecution witnesses.ratio¶40
Liberty reserved to the petitioner to take all contentions before the trial Court and pursue his pending application seeking discharge.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Mohammad Nawaz, J.), 07.03.2025, dismissed a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.58811/2018 (X ACMM, Bengaluru), including cognizance of offences punishable under S.419 and S.420 IPC and issuance of process dated 29.10.2018, arising from Crime No.566/2015 of K.R. Puram Police Station. The FIR was initially registered against Jayanth, Sumanth and Sukeeth Kumar (accused Nos.1-3); on investigation the petitioner - though absent from the FIR - was found to have engaged those three men to collect BESCOM electric charges using the billing machine, and they were transposed as CWs.4, 5 and 6 in the charge sheet. Held: mere omission of the petitioner's name from the FIR is not by itself a ground to quash; the plea of false implication and abuse of process was rejected at this stage, liberty being reserved to press the pending discharge application before the trial Court. IA No.1/2023 was also dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10135 CRL.P No. 11636 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11636 OF 2023

¶8

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. MARUTHI @ RAMACHANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O NARAYANA SWAMY, R/AT HOUSE NO. 28 BEHIND CHETHAN INTERIOR, DODDAGUBBI VILLAGE AND POST, BANGALORE EAST - 560 077.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

BY SHO OF K.R.PURAM, POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

MR. MUNIYA NAIK ADULT, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, INCHARGE ASSISTANT ENGINEER AYYAPPANAGAR,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:10135 CRL.P No. 11636 of 2023

¶20

EXECUTIVE UNIT, BESCOM DEPT, 7^th DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.58811/2018 X ACMM, BENGALURU INCLUDING FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S.419,420 OF IPC BY THE COURT OF AND ISSUING PROCESS TO THE PETITIONER ON 29.10.2018.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is preferred by the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.58811/2018 pending before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:10135 CRL.P No. 11636 of 2023

¶30

It is contended by the learned counsel that the

¶31

name of the petitioner is not in the FIR and subsequently while filing charge sheet he has been falsely implicated without there being any material against him, whereas the accused who are named in the FIR are cited as witnesses. He contended that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner are not made out and the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioner. He has therefore, contended that the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence, seeks to allow the petition and quash the proceedings.

¶32

FIR is registered in Crime No.566/2015 of K.R Puram Police Station, Bangalore on a complaint lodged by the Assistant Engineer (E), Ayyappa Nagar Division, K.R Puram Sub-Division, Bangalore City. A perusal of the complaint averments reveal that, a person by name Sri.Rajendra Babu (CW.7) resident of No.50, 2^nd main road, Vinayaka Layout , Ayyappa Nagar, K.R.Puram,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:10135 CRL.P No. 11636 of 2023

¶35

informed the Assistant Executive Engineer East 7^th SubDivision that, two boys have come to collect the electric charges and since he has raised suspicion against them, asked the Assistant Executive Engineer as to whether he should pay the electric bill to the said two persons. Immediately, the complainant along with other staff went to the spot and enquired the said two boys, who on enquiry revealed that they were told by one Sri.Jayanth that he has taken contract on behalf of BESCOM to collect the electric charges.

¶36

Initially, FIR was registered against Jayanth, Sumanth and Sukeeth Kumar arraigning them as accused Nos.1 to 3. In the course of investigation, it was found out that the petitioner herein had engaged the said three persons telling them that he has obtained contract from BESCOM to collect the electric charges and gave them the machine and asked them to collect the electric bills, from

¶37

the houses situated in 2^nd main, Vinayak Layout, Ayyappa Nagar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10135 CRL.P No. 11636 of 2023

¶39

The contention of the learned counsel that the

¶40

petitioner is not named in the FIR and subsequently he has been falsely implicated and therefore, the proceedings initiated against him is an abuse of process of law etc., cannot be accepted at this stage. During investigation it was found that it was the petitioner herein who engaged three persons to collect the electric charges by giving them the billing machine. The said three persons named in the FIR are cited as CWs.4, 5 and 6 respectively in the charge sheet, as the prosecution thought it fit to transpose them as prosecution witnesses who could speak in support of the prosecution case. Merely because the name of the petitioner is not in the FIR itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings.

¶41

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶42

submitted that petitioner has filed an application seeking discharge before the trial Court and the said application is pending consideration. It is open for the petitioner to take

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:10135 CRL.P No. 11636 of 2023

¶45

all contentions before the trial Court and seek his discharge.

¶46