Sri. Sanjeev Kumar Vs State by Town Police Station

SRI. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O. LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A LAXMI GARDEN, THINDAL, ERODE, R/O MELUR VILLAGE, NILIGIRI POST, NILGIRIS, TAMILNADU - 638 012.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

[BY SRI PRAKASH GOKLANEY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAMESHA C.N., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed

¶15

by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

STATE BY TOWN POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 562 101.

¶17

[BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP (PH)]

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2025 PASSED ON DISCHARGE APPLICATION IN CC NO.350/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT CHIKKABALLAPURA AND ALLOW THE PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 417, 406, 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:45444 CRL.RP No. 1062 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Challenging order dated 02.04.2025 passed by Prl.Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkaballapura, in C.C.no.350/2019, dismissing discharge application/petition, this revision petition is filed.

¶27

Sri Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, on 02.05.2017, a complaint came to be registered against petitioner (Accused no.1) and BC Timmayya (Accused no.2) for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC stating that with intention to make wrongful gain, they had contacted Sri Ashok Babu Pandit (complainant), who was trying to get medical seat for his daughter, introduced himself stating that for year 2016, a 'management quota' seat was available at Nitte University's Dr.K.S Hedge Medical College, Mangalore, for which he would be required to pay Rs.20 Lakhs, apart from yearly fee of Rs.7.5 Lakhs and inducing complainant to pay Rs.10 Lakhs twice to Accused no.2 on 24.08.2016 and 12.09.2016 through RTGS and thereafter accused no.1 calling complainant to attend

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:45444 CRL.RP No. 1062 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

counseling on 15.09.2016 and after attending same and finding medical seat was not allotted to his daughter, he realized that he was cheated etc. It was submitted, a case was registered as Crime no.120/2017 by Chikkaballapura Town Police Station and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 16.11.2018.

¶32

It was submitted, bare perusal of complaint as well as charge-sheet would only reveal allegation that accused no.1 introduced complainant to accused no.2. There is no allegation of accused no.1 receiving money or other benefit from complainant. Even during investigation, no evidence was collected against accused no.1 about making wrongful gain. Thus none of offences as alleged could be established against accused no.1. It was further submitted, there was not even bare allegation about mens rea in order to prosecute accused no.1 for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 406 of IPC. It was further submitted, only material witnesses for prosecution were, wife and daughter of complainant and not any independent witnesses. Said factors were sufficient for allowing discharge application and prayed for allowing revision petition.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45444 CRL.RP No. 1062 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

On other hand, Smt.N Anitha, learned HCGP opposed revision petition. It was submitted, prosecution records would show that there were continuous calls by accused no.1 to complainant, inducing him to transfer money to account of accused no.2, indicating his involvement in commission of offences. Statement of CWs.2 and 3 would duly corroborate statement of complainant. Thus there was prima facie material to proceed against all accused. Hence, rejection of application by trial Court was justified and did not call for interference.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

¶37

HCGP for respondent and perused impugned order.

¶38

This revision petition is against order rejecting application for discharge. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Tamilnadu v. N Suresh Rajan & Ors. reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709, has held at time of considering application for discharge, Court is merely required to examine whether there is prima facie material for prosecution to proceed with trial and not to examine entire material in detail/conduct

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45444 CRL.RP No. 1062 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

mini trial. Further, it is held, even there is prima facie material, matter had to stand trial.

¶42

It is seen, charge-sheet was filed on 16.11.2018 citing 17 witnesses. CW.1 is complainant, while CWs.2 and 3 are his wife and daughter. Statement of CW.1 is as per complaint. CWs.2 and 3 supported same. They have specifically stated that accused no.1 made calls to complainant offering him to get medical seat for money and induced him to transfer money to account of accused no.2. They are prima facie witnesses to accused no.1 calling complainant. Prosecution has also recorded statements of Bank officials, who stated about transfer of money from account of complainant to accused no.2. These factors would constitute basic ingredients for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 406 of IPC. Merely on ground that no money was alleged to be transferred to accused no.1 or accused no.1 has also benefited would not be sufficient, especially, when prosecution has invoked Section 34 of IPC.

¶43