Sri Shashil G Namoshi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2025CRL.P/12704/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashing; S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS inherent power; inordinate unexplained delay of 15 years as ground to quash; cheating S.420/415 IPC — no victim or aggrieved-person complaint; mala fide/vendetta counter-complaint after Crime No.19/2024; Bhajan Lal categories; Chanchalpati Das; HKE Society Kalaburagi stipend and blocked-seat misappropriation alleged at Rs.65.17 crore; consequential quashing of offshoot FIR under BNS 2023 Ss.238/324(4)/190; Karnataka High Court, single judge M. Nagaprasanna.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.9690 of 2024 allowed and FIR in Crime No.38 of 2024 (CEN Police Station, Kalaburagi City) quashed; Criminal Petition No.12704 of 2024 allowed and FIR in Crime No.128 of 2024 (Station Bazar Police Station, Kalaburagi City) quashed; pending applications, if any, disposed. ¶191

Sri Shashil G Namoshi Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶191

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.38 of 2024 (Sections 420 r/w 34 IPC), registered on 05-08-2024 on a complaint by an advocate-member of HKE Society alleging misappropriation of Rs.65,17,36,800 towards postgraduate stipends and blocked/left-over seat monies during 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2018 by the petitioner office-bearers, should be quashed — in view of the 15-year unexplained delay, the absence of any aggrieved student-complainant, and the suspicion of retaliation for Crime No.19 of 2024. +1 more

¶49

Court's answer

The admitted, wholly unexplained delay of 15 years in lodging the complaint (incident span 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2018; complaint dated 05-08-2024) completely vitiated the registration of the crime itself; on the touch-stone of the law laid down in Chanchalpati Das v. State of West Bengal, unexplained inordinate delay is a crucial ground for quashing, and the crime required to be obliterated on that sole score.

¶143

Ratio / Principle

The offence under Section 420 IPC (whose ingredients lie in Section 415) was not met even to its remotest sense: cheating requires an aggrieved person lured with dishonest intention from the inception, but not one student had registered any complaint of non-receipt of stipend throughout the 15 years (an admitted fact), so cheating cannot be complained of by all and sundry; the investigation therefore could not be permitted.

¶167

Key takeaways

The registration smacked of mala fides: the persons accused in Crime No.19 of 2024 (which the petitioners had registered on similar allegations, and into which an Enquiry Committee had been constituted) were seeking to shoot from the shoulders of the de facto complainant, so the submission that the crime was an act of wreaking vengeance could not be brushed aside; permitting investigation would be an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice (Bhajan Lal, category 7).ratio¶168
Crime No.128 of 2024 was an off-shoot of Crime No.38 of 2024 (same complainant, copious references to the earlier complaint); once the parent crime stood obliterated, its off-shoot could not survive and the subsequent acts based upon it would also trample down; the companion petition therefore deserved to succeed without much ado.ratio¶204

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — inherent jurisdiction under S.482/528 BNSS/Cr.P.C. — office-bearers of Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society (HKE Society), Kalaburagi — FIR in Crime No.38/2024 (CEN P.S., Kalaburagi City) under Ss.420 r/w 34 IPC registered on a 05-08-2024 complaint by an advocate-member of the Society alleging misappropriation of Rs.65,17,36,800 towards postgraduate stipends and blocked/left-over seat monies during 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2018 — complaint lodged 15 years after inception and 6 years after the alleged incident ended; delay wholly unexplained and, following Chanchalpati Das v. State of West Bengal (2023 SCC OnLine SC 650), a crucial ground for quashing — ingredients of Ss.415/420 IPC absent: no aggrieved student ever complained, and cheating cannot be complained of 'by all and sundry' — complaint instigated by the accused in Crime No.19/2024 earlier registered by the petitioners on similar allegations; plea of wreaking vengeance not brushed aside; continuance an abuse of process (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, category 7) — FIR quashed — companion FIR in Crime No.128/2024 (Station Bazar P.S.) under Ss.238, 324(4) r/w 190 BNS 2023, being an off-shoot of the obliterated crime, consequently quashed.

¶1

¶2

Reserved on : 23.01.2025 Pronounced on : 07.02.2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12704 OF 2024

¶8

C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9690 OF 2024

¶10

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12704 OF 2024

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

1 . SRI SHASHIL G.NAMOSHI S/O GANGADHR NAMOSHI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS OCC: MLC AND PRESIDENT OF HKE SOCIETY R/AT SB COLLEGE ROAD ANAND NAGAR GB BAHAMANIPURA GULBARGA – 585 103.

¶13

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

2 . SRI BASAVARAJ BHIMALLI S/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA BHIMALLI AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS OCC: EX-PRESIDENT OF HKE SOCIETY R/AT H.NO.4-848, SARAB BAZAR NEAR GANESH MANDIR MUKTAMPUR, GULBARGA – 585 101.

¶15

¶16

3 . DR. MALLIKARJUN BHANDAR S/O SIDRAMAPPA BANDAR AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS OCC: MEDICAL PROFESSION R/AT H.NO.1-1166/4 ALWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE OFFICE N.E.SHAHI AREA GULBARGA – 585 102.

¶17

4 . DR. SAINATH KARNAPPA ANDOLA S/O KARANAPPA ANDOLA OCC: MEDICAL PROFESSION AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT H.NO.20907/27A/1A 1B GULBARGA MATERNITY HOSPITAL GUBBI COLONY GULBARGA – 585 105.

¶18

5 . DR. SHARANABASAPPA R.HARWAL S/O REVAPPA HARAVALA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC: MEDICAL PROFESSION R/AT NO.H.NO.1-10/4A NEAR NAGATHAN HOSPITAL KHUBA PLOT, GULBARGA – 585 102.

¶19

6 . C.C.PATIL @ CHANABASAWARAJ S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS OCC: SECRETARY OF HKE SOCIETY R/AT NO.96/C/3, MSK MILL ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR, GULBARGA – 585 102.

¶20

7 . UDAYKUMAR CHINCHOLI S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA CHINCHOLI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶21

¶22

OCC: ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF HKE SOCIETY R/AT NO.10-2-140, STATION BAZAR BEHIND COURT, MAHANTH NAGAR GULBARGA – 585 102.

¶23

... PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI NAGABHUSHANA REDDY K., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION BAZAR POLICE STATION GULBARGA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶27

2 . PRADEEP DABSHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SANGAPPA DABSHETTY R/AT H.NO.10-31/E KALA SANG, VITTALA NAGAR KALABURGI CITY KARNATAKA – 585 101.

¶28

... RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B.N., SPL. PP FOR R1; SRI SHIVAPRASAD M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, FOR R2)

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482/ 528 OF BNSS OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE ABOVE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.128/2024 REGISTERED BY THE STATION BAZAR P.S. KALABURGI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 238, 324(4) R/W 190 OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CJ (J.D) AND J.M.F.C GULBARGA.

¶31

¶32

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.9690 OF 2024

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

1 . SHRI SHASHIL NAMOSHI S/O GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS OCC: PRESIDENT HKE SOCIETY RESIDING AT ANAND NAGAR SB COLLEGE ROAD KALABURGI – 585 103.

¶35

2 . SHRI BASAVARAJ

¶36

S/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA BHIMALLI AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS OCC: EX-PRESIDENT HKE SOCIETY R/AT H.NO.4-848 NEAR GANESH MANDIR SARAB BAZAR, MUKTAMBUR KALABURGI – 585 101.

¶37

3 . DR. MALLIKARJUN @ MALLIKARJUN BHANDAR

¶38

S/O SIDRAMAPPA BANDARI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS OCC: MEDICAL PROFESSION R/AT H.NO.1-1166/4 AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD KALABURGI – 585 102.

¶39

4 . DR. SAINATH

¶40

S/O KARANAPPA ANDOLA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER R/AT HOUSE NO.2907/27A/1A GUBBI COLONY KALABURGI – 585 105.

¶41

¶42

5 . DR. SHARANABASAPPA @ SHARANABASAPPA R.HARWAL S/O REVAPPA HARAVALA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AND PRESENT COUNCIL MEMBER HKE SOCIETY R/AT H.NO.1-10/4A NEAR NAGATHAN HOSPITAL KHUBA PLOT AREA KALABURAGI – 585 102. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR COUNSEL FOR SRI K.NAGABHUSHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CEN POLICE STATION KALBURGI CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . SHRI PRADEEP DABSHETTY S/O SANGAPPA DABASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: ADVOCATE R/AT H.NO.10-3/1E KALA SANG VITTHALA NAGAR, KALABURGI CITY KARNATAKA – 585 102. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADEESHA B. N., SPL PP FOR R1; SRI SHIVAPRASAD M.SHANTHANGOUDAR, FOR R2)

¶43

¶44

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482/ 528 OF BNSS OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 0038/2024 DATED 05/08/2024 REGISTERED BY THE R1 CEN POLICE STATION, KALABURGI CITY AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AND JMFC, GULABARGA.

¶45

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶46

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶47

CAV ORDER

¶48

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9690 OF 2024

¶49

The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 are knocking at the doors of this Court, in the subject petition, calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.38 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶50

Heard Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶51

¶52

The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

¶53

A complaint comes to be registered by a practicing Advocate and a Member of the Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society (‘the Society’ for short) on 05-08-2024 alleging that during the period from 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2018, the petitioners herein had held the office as Members of the Governing Council intermittently and the petitioners had not remitted stipend amount of the postgraduate students and also they had not refunded the fee under the blocked left over seat. They had sold such seats at higher amounts to other students, secured blank cheques from the students and drawn the amount for personal purposes. It was alleged that the Members from 2009 to 2018 had misappropriated ₹65,17,36,800/-. A crime is registered based upon the said complaint, which becomes a crime in Crime No.38 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The registration of crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶54

The learned senior counsel Sri C.V. Nagesh appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that on 31-03-2024

¶55

¶56

petitioners had registered a crime against the former governing council Members of the education institution in Crime No.19 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC. Immediately thereafter, though accused against whom the crime was registered, to wreak vengeance against these petitioners have got the crime registered. An added circumstance is that the 1^st petitioner constitutes a three-member Enquiry Committee to enquire into the very same allegation of stipend and seat allotment by the said committee. The learned senior counsel further contends that for an offence to become punishable under Section 420 of the IPC somebody must be lured into illegal transaction. There is no complaint registered by any person, but an Advocate through the accused in Crime No.19 of 2024 has sought to register the subject crime.

¶57

Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Shivaprasad M. Shantanagoudar, who has filed the statement of objections would take this Court through the documents appended to the statement of objections to contend that there is ample evidence against these petitioners who have destroyed the files of stipend belonging to the

¶58

¶59

students. He would admit the fact that no student has complained and would contend that all the records are now destroyed by the petitioners which also becomes an added offence. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that it is a matter of investigation, in the least, for the petitioners to come out clean. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – (2021) 9 SCC 35 to buttress his submission that when there are seriously disputed questions of fact, this Court should not interfere.

¶60

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

¶61

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶62

The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The complainant is a member of the Society. He has been a member throughout. The subject complaint comes to be registered on 05-08-2024. The incident complained of ranges between 01-04-2009 and 31-03-2018. It is allegedly at that point in time the petitioners were members of the Governing Council of the Society. From 2018 onwards, certain other persons are members of the

¶63

¶64

Governing Council of the Society. It was a seesaw, as once the petitioners were in power and once the others. Against the functioning of certain persons who are holding the posts now, the petitioners register a crime in Crime No.19 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC. The complaint so registered against those persons read as follows:

¶65

“ ¢£ÁAP À: 31/03/2024

��,

�� .

��,

�� : 1) !��"#�$ %��#& '(�� )�.+�.� ,�-,�./ 2)1�.��.�2 3�/�4 3�5#"�3��(6�) �2.7$.�2.� 86�4 +�9��: �� ,�: �� 3) ;�<�� =#>� ?�@�AB �2.7$.�2.� 8�6�4 +�9��?�� '+C#D�#E F=�G 4) +�� H��#I ��@�?$, �F.7$.�#.�. H�5# )��- �=�� -6+�-#J� &@�#�: 01/01/2018 �#( &@�#�: 01/03/2024 �� KL�M 282 ?� N�.(�O� P.Q �>��RS�T�� ;#�#U�( ¸ÉÖöÊV#J WX KL�M 81,21,60,000/- �-3�Y�Z��A �[��RS�Z H��#� \�]��T�� WX ?�� 6� =( �#=� �[��RS�T�� WX ��J>� \�� ^�I�Z 8�9� '�5FN�� ;_ `1�(�+�-#J� WX �B1�54 ��6+�-#J� =Fa ;b#=+�c �Z�+�-#J� 8-�; �#d@� ��6(�� (e �5F ��=�.

¶70

*****

¶71

f g�� =Fa�� Ph�S(� ;��;��i>��@�#(�� @�� @�-�(��$ =#>� "�X`j k��N��, � ;�l 49 ��S�Zm, n>�-��o @�� N�&�Zm )�� ?�

¶72

¶73

;#^��, �@�SL� ��?� K�-cL(�) ��S, ,�॥ �5Wa`q�, ��S (8-�: 9343879179) �(�r.

¶74

5;�G= ��tu� N�.(�O� �v�� (National Medical Commission) )��- (Post Graduate Medical Education Board (PGMEG) (P.G) ¸ÁßvÀPÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ« w(�xG�� [��RS�T�� \�;� N�.(�O� +�9��?�� 5x x#�Zm ¸ÉÖöÊV#J WX �1�y N�� J�� 7>��"��=G>�. '(� 5+�� 2.7$.�2.� +�9��?�� >��RS�T�� '(�#]� 8-(�@� ��S+�c�-.45000=00 5x x#�Zm, ��1�@� ��S+�c�-. 50000=00 & g�@� - ��S+�c �- 55000=00 5x x#�Zm P.Q �>��RS�T�� '�� H��#� \�]��T�� WX ?�� J�]�G��. f WX��A 5x 3 x#�Zm 'BN� 4 x#�T��-8a �9�� >��RS�Z +�� H��#� �2.7$.�2.� +�9��?� �(��1� �� H�5#d�� H��#� \�]��T�� WX��A ?�� J�]�G��. f WX��A z�.�{� ��S 3�5�#|N�� ;F (�� >��RS�Z��A ,�� )�(�� 1�( ;_ ��6( ^�I '��A )�*.+�.�. ,�-�,�./ )��- �2.7$.�#.�. ;#,�} '~��( !��"#�$ %��#& �� +�9��Q� 6�� F=�G '+C#D�#E �� g�� (1) 8-(�@� ��S( �>��RS�Z �- 37,000-00 (5x x#�Zm) (2) ��J@�� S( �>��RS�T�� -. 40,000-00 (5x x#�Zm) (3) g�@�� S( �[��RS�Z �-.43,000-00 (5x x#�Zm) WX��A �� H��#� \�]��T#( ^��Z g�� WX �B1�5 ��6��]�G��. ;(� �[��RS�Zm �-6+�-#J� 1�. ��.�2 3�/�4 3�5#"�3�� +�9��?� (6��) �� F�� ,��H��+��( ¸ÉÖöÊV#J WX �F�� J>� \�� ^��Z 8�9� ;_ `1�(�+�-#J� �Fa H��#� \�]��T#( WX��A h�+� �B1�54 ��6��xG� '#]� �^��>��, 1�. ��.�2 3�/�4 3�5#"�3�� )��-, +�9��Q� (6��) �� F=� '(�� [��RS�T�� f �^�� )�-�� xT�(�� Fa �#L��4 ��IlS 3�5OM�4 ��IlS �E ��J�]�G�N� )�� N�.(�O� Q�� )�Zm ��J�]�G�N� �#(� )��T �>��RS�Z ,��J-L��.El (W��c) �,�(�+�-Zm•xG>�r��. f ��xh�� >��RS�T�� 8-�; �#d@� ��J�xG��i(� �#J� �#&��=G>�.

¶75

P.Q �>��RS�Z H��#I \�]��T#( f +�Z�#J#]� ^�I �xÁØç ��J9��>�. (6,�#�YS#( ��ZÀéð��- KL�M 4 x#�ZWX )

¶76

;#,�}^��-c �>��RS�Z¸ÀASÉå `5x�>��RS�� #&�� ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ J¯Áè¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ MlÄÖ ºÀt gÀÆ. ¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÀít ��>��RS�T��

¶77

¶78

¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÁíO(	1£ÉÃ	ªÀµÀð–45,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
&@�#�	2£ÉÃ	ªÀµÀð-50,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
	3£ÉÃ	ªÀµÀð-55,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
10-04-2023	1£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	1,80,000/-	1,69,20,000/-
	2£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94 3£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	2,00,000/- 2,20,000/-	1,88,00,000/- 2,06,80,000/- MlÄÖ: 5,64,00,000

¶79

8�9� )��T(#]� ?�� 7�� ,�M�V#qÀíX��A f +�Z�#J#]� �xÁØç ��J9��>�.

¶80

ªÉÆ(9��;_	�>��RS�Z¸ÀASÉå	«zÁåyðUÀ½AzÀ »A¥ÀqÉzÀ	MlÄÖ»A¥ÀqÉzÀºÀt
��6�+�-#J		,�M�V#qÀíX
ZÉPÀÆä�� 7��-�P�Zm ,�M�V#qÀíX��A		1£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–37,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 2£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð- 40,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 3£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð-43,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
�xÁØç ��6(
&@�#�
13-04-2023	1£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	1,48,000/-	1,39,12,000/-
(r¸ÉA§¬ÄðAzÀ ªÀiÁZÀéðgÉUÀÆ MlÄÖ 4	2£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94 3£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	1,60,000/- 1,72,000/-	1,50,40,000/- 1,61,58,000/- MlÄÖ 4,51,20,000/-
wAUÀ¼ÀºÀt)

¶81

( €P54 �#( ?-�b��- KL�M 3 x#�ZWX )

¶82

;#,�}^��-a�� �>��RS�T��M	�>��RS�Z¸ÀASÉå	`5x�>��RS�� #&�� ¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÀít	¸ÀA¸ÉÜ J¯Áè¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ MlÄÖ ºÀt gÀÆ.
¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÁíO( &@�#�		1£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–45,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 2£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð-50,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 3£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð-55,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
13-07-2023	1£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	1,35,000/-	1,26,90,000/-
	2£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94 3£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	2,50,000/- 1,65,000/-	1,41,00,000/- 1,55,10,000/- MlÄÖ:4,23,00,000/-

¶83

8�9� )��T(#]� ?�� 7�� ,�M�V#qÀíX��A f +�Z�#J#]� �xÁÖç ��J9��>�.

¶84

¶85

ªÉÆ(9��;_	�>��RS�Z¸ÀASÉå	`5x«zÁåyðUÀ½AzÀ	MlÄÖ»A¥ÀqÉzÀºÀt
��6�+�-#J		»A¥ÀqÉzÀ,�M�V#qÀíX
7��-�P�Zm		1£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–37,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
,�M�V#qÀíX��A		2£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð- 40,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
�xÁØç ��6(		3£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð-43,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
&@�#�
15-07-2023 æ	1£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	1,11,000/-	1,04,34,000/-
(K¦æ¯ïEAzÀ	2£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	1,20,000/-	1,12,80,000/-
dÆ£ÀégÉUÀÆ MlÄÖ 3 wAUÀ¼ÀºÀt)	3£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	1,29,000/-	1,21,26,000/- MlÄ:3,38,40,000/-
	(?�9�.Y#( '+�-M�	��S��- KL�M4x#�ZWX)	Ö
;#,�}^��-a�� �>��RS�T��M ¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÁíO( &@�#�	�>��RS�Z¸ÀASÉå	`5x�>��RS�� #&�� ¸ÉÖöÊ¥ÉAqÀít 1£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–45,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 2£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð-50,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 3£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð-55,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ	¸ÀA¸ÉÜ J¯Áè¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ MlÄÖ ºÀt gÀÆ.
04-11-2023	1£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	1,80,000/-	1,69,20,000/-
	2£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94 3£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	2,00,000/- 2,20,000/-	1,88,00,000/- 2,06,80,000/- MlÄÖ:5,64,00,000
8�9� )��T(	#]� ?�� 7�� ,�M�	V#qÀíX��A f +�Z�#J#]� �x	ÁØç ��J9��>�.
ªÉÆ(9��;_	�>��RS�Z¸ÀASÉå	«zÁåyðUÀ½AzÀ »A¥ÀqÉzÀ	MlÄÖ»A¥ÀqÉzÀºÀt
��6�+�-#J ZÉPÀÆä�� 7��-�P�Zm ,�M�V#qÀíX��A		,�M�V#qÀíX 1£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–37,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 2£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð- 40,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 3£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð-43,000/wAUÀ¼ÀÄ
�xÁØç ��6( &@�#�
10-11-2023	1£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	1,48,000/-	1,39,12,000/-
(r¸ÉA§¬ÄðAzÀ	2£ÉÃ ªÀµÀð–94	1,60,000/-	1,50,40,000/-
ªÀiÁZÀéðgÉUÀÆ	É ÀÀ	1,72,000/-	1,61,58,000/-
MlÄÖ 4 wAUÀ¼À ºÀt)	3£Ã ªµð–94		MlÄÖ:4,51,20,000/-

¶86

¶87

f 8�9� xT�(#]� &@�#�: 01/01/2018 �#( &@�#�: 01/03/2024 �� #.7$,�#.� +�9��?�� KL�M 282 ?� N�.�O� P.Q �[��RS�T�� ;#�#U�( KL�M 80% ��M ,�.`#J WX _�� KL�M 81,21,60,000/- +�-�/ �-3�Y�Z��A ;#,�} '��, 6�� )��- '+C#D�#E F=�G +�� H��#I ��@�?$ )��- �=�� k�-]� ,�� =Fa ;b#=+�c �Z�+�-#J� 8-�; �#d@� ��6��]�G��.

¶88

)�*.+�.�. ,�-�,�./ '~��, 6�� F=�G '+C#D�#E '��-#&�� ,�� >��RS ;_ ��6�� K#>�� H�5#•� ^�I�Z��A )�(�� `1�&��i(�.

¶89

�>��RS�Z(\�]�>��) �F�+�c H��>� 7 ^�I�Z��A H��#�� ;(� +��H��#I ��@��?$ '�� >��RS�Z n`�}x ��>� >�-Jy FLM( WX �=�� 6��i(�.

¶90

H��#I �#( `1�( WX��A ;#,�} '(�� ;b#= �Z+�� Z�+�-#6(�r @�-#( 8 ?� �[��RS�Z �� f +�Z��#]� ��=G>� ��-AT( �>��RS�Z �� #=� ;��;9��i(�.

¶91

SL.NO.	STUDENT NAME	CANARA BANK ACCOUNT NO.	IFSC CODE	STIFUND AMOUNT CREDIT	SELF WITHDRAWAL
1	DR.SATISH BASAGI	13052610000409	SYNB0001305	690000	370000
2	DR.PRIYANKA PATIL	110072555414	CNRB0011305	1090000	724000
3	DR.PRIYANKA H.Y	110046438647	CNRB0011305	1090000	724000
4	DR.ANUP BALABHEEM	110041097790	CNRB0011305	1090000	724000
5	DR.YOGESH GOWDA	0448101064066	CNRB0011305	1090000	724000
6	DR.SHREYA MISHRA	110041335148	CNRB0011305	1090000	724000
7	DR.ANIL KUMAR K	110045285768	CNRB0011305	1090000	724000
8	DR.PRIYANKA P	110072563128	CNRB0011305	1090000	724000

¶92

)�.+�.�. ,�-�,�./ '~��( !��"#�$ %��#&, �#.7$.�2.� 8�6�4 +�9��?� 3�5#"�3�� (6�) 1�.��.�2 3�/�4 ,� ॥ ��, �#.7$.�2.� 8�6�4 +�9��?�� '+C#D�#E ;�<�� =#>� ?�@�AB ,�॥ �� )��- +�� H��#I ��@�?$, �2.7$.�#.�. H�5# �� )��- �=�� -6+�-#J� &@�#�: 01/01/2018 �#( &@�#�: 01/03/2024 �� KL�M 282 ?� N�.(�O� P.Q �[��RS�T�� ;#�#U�( ,�.V#‚ WX KL�M 81,21,60,000/-

¶93

¶94

�-3�Y�Z��A 8-�; �#d@� ��J�� n>�r�"&#( ;(� �>��RS�Z H��#I \�]��T�� ;#�#U�( ^�I�Z 8�9� F�#�JN�� [��RS�T#( ;_ 1�(� '�� F�+�c H��(#]� '5��{�]�Y#( WX �B1�5�4 ��6+�-#J� =Fa ;b#=+�c �Z�+�-#J� 8-�; �#d@� ��6(�� (e +��-�� 5F +�.��-Z•�� #x ��=G>�.

¶95

The complaint is registered on 31-03-2024 with all the details. The allegation is that between 01-01-2018 and 01-03-2024 about 282 students had not received stipend and the students had complained thereon. The petitioners, on registration of the aforesaid complaint, constituted a three-member inquiry committee on 21-05-2024 to go into the stipend and seat allotment irregularities by those accused persons. The inquiry is underway.

¶96

Those accused against whom petitioners have registered

¶97

crime in Crime No.19 of 2024, appear to have now, through the 2^nd respondent/complainant, sought to register the complaint on

¶98

¶99

05-08-2024. The complaint so registered on 05-08-20024, against

¶100

the petitioners reads as follows:

¶101

�� ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05-08-2024

¶102

�� 7�� .�.�� ; ��

¶103

��

¶104

�� : &@�#�:01/04/2009 �#( 31/03/2018 � '�U �� )�.>�5H�ƒ „�X ;#,�} 'U��(�� F)�>��3�j ��#`q��, N�.(�O� F)��>�� , �� '��)�� 6(�� (e +��-�� 5F ?��;�� ….

¶105

¶106

@�� „5� 5&� =#>� ;#�`j >��z��/M � ;�l :50 ��S, n>�-�� : @�� N�& F=�G )�.+�.� ;#,�} ;(;��, k�:�#�� = ,�:F@� �#:10-3/1� �9� ;#� �oÀ×� �� 8-�.�#:9448022231 �(�r @�� 2012 @�� ,��#( �� )�.+�.� ;#,�} ;(;��(�r )��- �O�� †xG ��J�]�G �#&��]�G�@�.

¶107

&@�#�: 01/04/2009 �#( &@�#�: 31/03/2018 � '�U �� 1) „5� "„�4 =#>� �#�� 8-�„ )�� F=�G ��Q '��, )�.+�.� ;#,�} �� ,�: ��.% +�9��?� ��-�‚ ,7�#( �� , 2) „5� �;��? =#>� „�"�X3�j !�FT•, ��Q '~�� )�.+�.� ;#,�}, �� ,�: F�G#q� ��" F#&� WxG� �� , 3) 1�: F��+�?�S� �#1�� Q 6�� 2.7$.�2.� +�9��?� �� ,�: ‡-N��-z�_ +�9��?� �� 8-�H�.4 �#:9448041850 4) 1�: ,�Y@�B +� 7#>�-��, ��Q 6�� 2.7$.�2.� +�9��?� �� ,�: ��%ˆ +�9�-�� 8-H�.4 �#:9448881818 5) 1�: "�X�;j 7$. W�N�Z, ��Q 6�� 2.7$.�2.� +�9��?� �� F=�G )�� C��S#� +C¤ì�#� 8#�� 7 )�*.+�.� ,�-,�./ ,�: ‰-H� 3��E �� 8-�H�.4 �#:9341732768 �� **�** - �-6+�-#J� &@�#�:01/04/2009 �#( 31/03/2018 � �� )�.>�5H�ƒ �@�SL� „�X ;#,�} 'U��(�� F)�>��3�j ��#q��, N�.(�O� F)��>�� ,�A=+�-�=G� `(��~�� ,�M.V#‚ WX 3��x;>� )��- +�Yr��( (Blocked/Left

¶108

¶109

over seat ) '|�RS „�E �Z��A +��Š#(� �>��RS�T�� WX N�;�l ��6 +��i �>��RS�T�� WX N�;�l ��J>� )�•‹� WX+�c H�� '|�RS�T�� L��A ��L ��6 '�5FN�;�(�r F=�G �>��RS�T#( F�#�JN�� \�� ^�I �Z 8�9� ��?� ��6�+�-#J� WX 1�5 ��6+�-#J� ;b#=+�c n`Œ-��+�-#J� ;�� 65,17,36,800/- �-3�Y ;#,�} 8-=G ;b#=+�c �Z�+�-#J� 8-�; �#d@� ��6(�� (e +��-�� 5F +�.��-Z•�� #x.

¶110

„5� 5&� =#>� ;#�`j >��z��/M n>�-�� : @�� N�& F=�G )�*.+�.�

¶111

;#,�} ;(;��, ,�:F@� �#:10-3/1�

¶112

A perusal at the complaint is indicative of one fact that it relates to

¶113

an incident which begins on 01-04-2009 and ends on 31-03-2018 which would be 15 years after the beginning of the incident and 6 years after ending of the incident. The incident alleged in the complaint is verbatim similar to the allegations that the petitioners had made against other members who are now, as observed hereinabove, wanting to shoot from the shoulders of the defacto complainant, to register the crime.

¶114

¶115

It is also an admitted fact that the complainant is one of the members of the Society throughout and has been an office bearer at intermittent intervals. If he was projecting himself to be a vigilante, he ought to have registered the crime immediately, as it is not his case that he did not know it. Therefore, delay of 15 years has completely vitiated the registration of crime itself. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL¹ wherein it is held as follows:

¶116

10. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents on record and having anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that according to the complainantrespondent, a letter in the form of complaint was written by the Branch Manager of the ISKCON Kolkata, on 30.09.2006 addressed to the officer in-charge, Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata, in respect of an alleged theft of a bus having taken place in 2001, however, no action was taken by the said police station. Though, the complainant had reported the matter to the concerned Police Station earlier on 22^nd May, 2002, however, no action was taken in that regard. It is pertinent to note that with regard to the said allegations against the concerned police station, there is nothing on record to suggest that either the said report dated 22.05.2002 or the letter dated 30.09.2006 was ever received by the concerned police station or any follow up action was taken by the respondent-complainant in that regard.

¶117

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 650

¶118

¶119

According to the respondent-complainant, since no action was taken on the letter dated 30^th September, 2006 written to the concerned Police Station, the complaint was lodged in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 10^th February, 2009, which was registered as C.R. Case No. 747 of 2009, seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C.

¶120

11. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the concerned Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata would not have taken any action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the powerful body like the ISKCON Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30.09.2006 written by the Branch Manager of the ISKCON, Kolkata. The respondent no. 2-complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the Court was filed in the year 2009. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by the ISKCON, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court.

¶121

12. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint filed before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered at the Ballygunge Police Station on 20^th February, 2009, it is discernible that except bald allegations made in the complaint with regard to the theft of bus in question there was no material or document produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations against the appellants. Even after the investigation of the said complaint, there was no evidence collected by the investigating officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients constituting the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120B of IPC.

¶122

¶123

Even if the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the Chargesheet are taken at their face value none of the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are culled out. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shyam Divan for the appellants had strenuously urged relying upon the documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership and registration of the said bus, that the said documents were executed by the then authorized persons of the ISKCON Kolkata, in our opinion, the said documents could not be considered in these proceedings, the same being not the part of the charge-sheet papers. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the other documents on record of the instant appeals that the investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence collected on the documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were committed. Under the circumstances, allowing such prosecution to continue would not only be an empty formality but would be gross wastage of court's precious time.

¶124

13. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have power to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised and with great caution, the said powers ought to be exercised if a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out by the accused. In the State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy¹¹ had held that the criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 if the court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed.

¶125

14. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark decision in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra), after considering relevant provisions more particularly Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. and the principles of law

¶126

¶127

enunciated by this Court relating to the exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226, had laid down certain guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing, which have been followed in umpteen number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads as under:

¶128

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶129

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶130

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶131

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶132

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶133

¶134

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶135

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶136

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶137

15. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy¹² this Court had observed that the Court would be justified to quash the proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

¶138

16. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu¹³ that though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint.

¶139

17. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle the personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more

¶140

¶141

particularly when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-accused.”

¶142

(Emphasis supplied)

¶143

In the light of admitted fact of delay of 15 years in registering the complaint, which is wholly unexplained and on the touch-stone of the law as laid down by the Apex Court, the crime requires to be obliterated on that sole score. But, I deem it appropriate to examine whether the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is even

¶144

met in the case at hand. Section 420 of the IPC reads as follows:

¶145

“ 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property .— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security , or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶146

(Emphasis supplied)

¶147

Section 420 has its ingredients in Section 415. Section 415 of the IPC reads as follows:

¶148

¶149

“ 415. Cheating .—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived 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, is said to “cheat”.

¶150

Explanation .—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

¶151

Illustrations

¶152

( a ) A , by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z , and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.

¶153

( b ) A , by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

¶154

( c ) A , by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

¶155

( d ) A , by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z , and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.

¶156

( e ) A , by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z , and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.

¶157

( f ) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him

¶158

¶159

and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.

¶160

( g ) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery, A cheats; but if A , at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.

¶161

( h ) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A 's part of a contract made with Z , which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.

¶162

( i ) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A , knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z , without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B , and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.”

¶163

Section 415 requires the accused to lure the victim into a transaction with a dishonest intention right from the inception. The provision of law is unequivocal that the accused should lure a person. Therefore, there must be a person involved who is aggrieved of the offence of luring and cheating by the accused.

¶164

In the case at hand, it is a Member, a practising

¶165

Advocate, who complained of non-payment of stipend 15 years ago

¶166

¶167

to a student or students as the case would be. Not one student, till today, has registered any complaint throughout the 15 years that he has not received the stipend. This is an admitted fact. Without there being an aggrieved person who has been cheated, cheating cannot be complained by all and sundry, that too after 15 years of the incident or even 6 years of the last date of the alleged incident. Therefore, both, on the score that the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is not even met to its remotest sense, and the delay of 15 years, the investigation in the crime cannot be permitted to be investigated into.

¶168

Yet another fact that is borne out of the records is that the petitioners have registered certain crime against the Governing Council Members of the Society on 31-03-2024 on similar allegations. Enquiry Committee is constituted to enquire into the crime in Crime No.19 of 2024. Therefore, the submission of the learned senior counsel that it could be an act of wreaking vengeance cannot be brushed aside. In the teeth of all the aforesaid facts, the crime cannot be permitted to be continued. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of

¶169

¶170

STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL² wherein it is held as

¶171

follows:

¶172

“…. …. ….

¶173

102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶174

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶175

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶176

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶177

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable

¶178

2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

¶179

¶180

offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶181

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶182

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶183

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶184

(Emphasis supplied)

¶185

In the light of the aforesaid facts, permitting investigation would

¶186

become an abuse of the process of law and resultantly, result in miscarriage of justice.

¶187

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶188

O R D E R

¶189

(i) Criminal Petition No.9690 of 2024 is allowed.

¶190

¶191

(ii) FIR in Crime No.38 of 2024 registered by CEN Police Station, Kalaburagi City and pending before the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gulbarga stands quashed.

¶192

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12704 OF 2024

¶193

The subject petition is preferred by accused Nos. 1 to 7 in Crime No.128 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 324(4), 238 and 190 of the BNS.

¶194

Two of the accused, accused Nos.6 and 7 are added, but

¶195

accused Nos. 1 to 5 are the same as in the companion petition - Criminal Petition No.9690 of 2024. The issue gets triggered from a complaint registered on 30-10-2024. The complaint reads as follows:

¶196

“ ��,

¶197

�� 7�� , ,�M�� k�� , ��, ��,

¶198

¶199

�� :- �� @�A �#.38/2024 @��(r� 5��X+�c ;#�#U�( (,�GN��?��Z��A @�" 6�( ��… (-��.

¶200

*****

¶201

8�9�c{�( �� +�c ;#�#U�(#]� @�� ¥Àæ&� =#>� ;#�3�j >��z��/M � : 50 ��S k�: �#�� = n: �O�� †xG ,�॥ F.�#. 10-3/1� �9� ;#� �•4 �� f 'QS g�� =Fa�� '�+� ��6+�-Zm•�i>�@�#(��, @�� f F�#^� &@�#�:05.08.2024 �#(� �� ( �� )�?�� &@�#�:01.04.2009 �#( &@�#�:31.03.2018 � '�U �� )�.>�5H�ƒ �@�SL� „�X ;#,�} 'U��(�� F)�>��j ��#q�� N�.(�O� F)��>�� , �� ,�A=+�-�=G� (�� ,�M.V#‚ WX 3��x;>� )��- +�Yr��( '|�RS�Z „�L�Z��A H�� >��RS�T�� )�•‹� WX+�c ��L ��6 ;�� 65,17,36,800/- �Z '�5FN�;��]�G�� '#= 1) „5� "„�4 �8-�� 2) „5� �;��? !�FT• 3) 1�॥ F��+�?�S� |#1�� 4) 1�॥ ,�Y@�B +�. 5) 1�॥ "�X�;j 7$ WgÀN�Z ��Z ��(e (-�� ;� **�** ( 5+�� ( �.�.�� @�A �#.38/2024 ��# 420 ;# 34 ‡P� 5+�� &@�#�: 05.08.2024 �#(� 5��X >�‰9��(�r ��=G>�. ;(� 5,�(�i =�\� W#=(�� N��9� '#(�� &@�#�:15.09.2024 �#(� F>��WA 1:00 �#D�Y#( 2:00 �#D� '�UŒ-Z�� „5� �.�. 3�/�4 7JT= 'U+��Zm )�.>�5H�ƒ �@�SL� „�X ;#,�} �� ‡N�� K z�_ €�h�(� **�** �� )�.>�5H�( �@�SL� „�X ;#,�} +�h�S� ( �LMJ( _#�& � **�** �� ‰�9�� ;}Z(�� >�‰9�x�T�� H�#O W•‹ ;�L�M )�O ,��Ž @�"6;��i(+�c 5 xA�(�r, 7 +��+�c +��Š#(� +��Š#(� >�‰9�xZ��A �•�(�r ��=G>�. „5� �.� 3�/�� 8�9� �g&�( 7��-�P=� ;-d@� #]� >�‰9�x�Z��A ;�L�M )��6� ,��Ž @�"6��]�G��. �(��>�� )�.>�5H�( �@�SL� „�X ;#,�} +� S(„Sh�( „5� n( �� •#^�-�T �� F)�>��j ��#q� N�.(�O� +�9��Q� ��xG�� '�U �;G�;�� … �� n-+� S(„S 9�-�+�-Œ-�� 9�\� �@�SL� ;+�S� �[��,C~ H�#�Z•��  =5 ��)�� 6(�r '(�� &@�#�:15.03.2022 � �(9�� &@�#�:15.03.2018 '#= x&r��]�G�� 7 ;F (�� „5� !��"#�� %��#& �� '��i&�� 7(r�#( +� S(„S�‘�( n( �� •#^�-�T �� x&r(r�#( �� F=�G >�‰9�x�Z��A ;�L�M )��6� ,��Ž @�"6�� (e ;-�G +��-�� 5F ?��;H�� '#= ��#x.

¶202

¶203

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ ¸À»/(¥Àæ¢Ã¥À zÁ§±ÉÃnÖ) ¸Á॥ «oÀ¯ï £ÀUÀgÀ PÀ®§ÄgÀV ªÉÆ.£ÀA.9448022231.”

¶204

A perusal at the complaint would indicate that it is an off-shoot of the complaint so registered on 05-08-2024 in Crime No.38 of 2024 against these very accused by the very complainant as there are copious references to the said complaint. The complaint therein had become a crime in Crime No.38 of 2024, which is now obliterated for the reasons rendered in Criminal Petition No.9690 of 2024. In the light of the crime itself being obliterated, it hardly needs any emphasis that its off-shoot cannot survive.

¶205

Therefore, for the reasons so rendered in the companion petition and its obliteration, when the crime has been taken off, the subsequent acts based upon the said crime would also trample down. In that light the subject petition deserves to succeed without much ado.

¶206

¶207

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶208

O R D E R

¶209

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶210

(ii) FIR in Crime No.128 of 2024 registered by the Station Bazar Police Station, Kalaburagi City and pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Gulbarga stands quashed.

¶211

Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand disposed.

¶212

SD/-___

¶213

JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶214

Bkp CT:SS

Sri Shashil G Namoshi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shashil G Namoshi v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H C Prathik Vs the State of Karnataka

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Harisha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri N Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. B. S. Yeddyurappa Vs the Criminal Investigating Department CID

Sri. B. S. Yeddyurappa Vs the Criminal Investigation Department (Cid)