Babu @ Bommanahalli Babu @ Ayub Khan v. State by Kengeri P S

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2025WP/18274/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge sheet C.C.No.15917/2023 (Crime No.399/2021, Sections 392, 411, 149 IPC, Kengeri Police, XXXII ACMM Bangalore) against Accused No.4 Babu @ Bommanahalli Babu @ Ayub Khan; petitioner resigned as Director of M/s.Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. on 01.01.2016 (Form DIR-11, Registrar of Companies); prior quashing of identical proceedings in W.P.No.19063/2021 dated 09.06.2022; abuse of process of law; writ under Articles 226/227 Constitution r/w Section 482 CrPC; neutral citation NC: 2025:KHC:2240.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.15917/2023 arising out of Crime No.399/2021, pending on the file of XXXII ACMM, Bangalore. ¶¶61

Babu @ Bommanahalli Babu @ Ayub Khan Vs State by… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.15917/2023 arising out of Crime No.399/2021, pending on the file of XXXII ACMM, Bangalore.

¶¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.15917/2023 against the petitioner (Accused No.4), who resigned as Director of M/s.Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. on 01.01.2016 and whose identical proceedings were already quashed in W.P.No.19063/2021, is an abuse of the process of law warranting interference by this Court. +1 more

¶¶56

Court's answer

In view of the undisputed fact that identical proceedings against the petitioner (Accused No.4) had already been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.19063/2021, and that the petitioner resigned from the post of Director as long back as 01.01.2016, continuation of the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned would tantamount to an abuse of the process of law warranting interference by this Court.

¶¶56

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.15917/2023 arising out of Crime No.399/2021, registered by the 1st respondent-police and pending on the file of XXXII ACMM, Bangalore, are quashed.

¶¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S.R. Krishna Kumar J., oral order dated 20.01.2025) allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution r/w Section 482 CrPC filed by Babu @ Bommanahalli Babu @ Ayub Khan, arraigned as Accused No.4 in C.C.No.15917/2023 (charge sheet dated 19.01.2023, Annexure-C) arising out of Crime No.399/2021 (Kengeri P.S., dated 08.11.2021) under Sections 392, 411 and 149 IPC, pending before XXXII ACMM, Bangalore, and quashed the proceedings qua the petitioner. Grounds: (i) the petitioner had resigned as Director of M/s.Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore on 01.01.2016, as per Form No.DIR-11 issued by the Registrar of Companies, prior to the alleged offence; and (ii) identical proceedings against him had already been quashed by the same Court in W.P.No.19063/2021 (order dated 09.06.2022). Continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner was held to be an abuse of the process of law warranting interference.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2240 WP No. 18274 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 18274 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BABU @ BOMMANAHALLI BABU @ AYUB KHAN S/O SYED BASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 11/4, GROUND FLOOR, SUVARNA BHAVAN, QUEENS ROAD, SHIVAJINAGARA BENGALURU - 560 001. (WRONGLY MENTION AS OWNER ATTICA GOLD COMPANY)

¶9

PERMANENT ADDRESS,

¶10

R/AT T -3, MARIAMMA APARTMENTS FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 005.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VANAMALA

¶15

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

STATE BY KENGERI P S REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX, OPP TO VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560001

¶18

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O S D GIRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2151 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, SHRIRAMA LAYOUT KENGERI BANGALORE - 560 060.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. BASAVARAJU P., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:2240 WP No. 18274 of 2023

¶23

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRPC., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DTD 19.01.2023 PRESENT AT ANNX-C WHICH IS REGISTERED AS C NO. 15917/2023 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 399/2021 U/S 392 411 AND 149 OF IPC FILED BY THE R-1 POLICE AND THE SAME IS PENDING IN THE FILE OF HONBLE XXXII ACMM AT BANGALORE WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.4.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following relief:

¶28

"Quash the Charge sheet dated 19.01.2023 present at Annexure-C, which is registered as CC No.15917/2023 arising out Crime No.399/2021 U/s.392,411 and 149 of IPC filed by the 1^st Respondent-Police and the same is pending on the file of XXXII ACMM, Bangalore, wherein the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.4 in the interest of justice and equity".

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for 1^st respondent – State as well as learned counsel for 2^nd respondent and perused the material on record.

¶30

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 in the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.15917/2023, arising out of Crime

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:2240 WP No. 18274 of 2023

¶33

No.399/2021 dated 08.11.2021, which was registered against unknown persons. After investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons, in which, one Nagesh is arraigned as accused No.1 and the petitioner is shown to be the Director of M/s.Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. In this context, it is relevant to state that the petitioner had resigned from the status / position of a Director from the aforesaid M/s. Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd., on 01.01.2016 itself as can be seen from Form No.DIR-11 issued by the Registrar of Companies. The said fact has been recognised and confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.19063/2021 dated 09.06.2022 filed by the petitioner, in which, this Court quashed the proceedings impugned therein as against the petitioner herein on the ground that he had resigned from the company on 01.01.2016 itself, much prior to the alleged commission of the offence and that no proceedings can be initiated or prosecuted against the resigned Director. In the aforesaid order of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner, it was held as under:-

¶34

“ In this petition, the first information report was lodged alleging that the gold jewelleries belonging to the complainant were stolen by the accused and the said

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:2240 WP No. 18274 of 2023

¶37

accused sold the same to the Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd in various branches.

¶38

2. The Police registered the FIR in Crime No.138/2020 and after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner alleging that he is the Director of the Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd and as such has committed an offence punishable under Sections 380 and 342 read with Section 34 of IPC. Taking exception to the same this petition is filed.

¶39

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ceased to be the Director of the company on 01.01.2016 which is evident from Form No.DIR-11 issued by the Registrar of Companies. Hence he submits that the alleged incident has taken place after the petitioner ceased to be Director of the said company and as such the FIR registered against the petitioner is impermissible.

¶40

4. Learned HCGP submits that the petitioner being the Director of the company has received stolen property from the accused and as such has committed the offence alleged against him and at this stage, the FIR registered against the petitioner and the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

6. To substantiate the claim that the petitioner ceased to be the Director of Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. to which the stolen property was sold, Form No.DIR-11 issued by the Registrar of Companies is produced. The said document indicates that the petitioner/accused ceased to be the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:2240 WP No. 18274 of 2023

¶45

Director of the company with effect from 01.01.2016. The alleged incident has taken place after the petitioner ceased to be the Director of the company in question which is alleged to have received the stolen property.

¶46

7. The resignation of the petitioner as Director of the Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. is evident from Form No.DIR-11. The same has remained uncontroverted and not disputed by the respondents. In the absence of any dispute to the said document, it is implied that the petitioner ceased to be the Director of the company in question as on the date of the alleged incident. Hence, in the absence of any corroborative material that the petitioner as director of the company in question has received the stolen property, the registration of FIR and also the filing of charge sheet is without any substance.

¶47

8. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The Writ petition is allowed.

¶50

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.138/2020 is quashed.

¶51

iii) Liberty is reserved with the respondent State to proceed against the company which is alleged to have received the stolen property in accordance with law, if so advised.”

¶52

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the

¶53

undisputed fact that identical proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.4 have already been quashed by this Court in the

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:2240 WP No. 18274 of 2023

¶56

aforesaid writ petition and in the light of the petitioner having resigned from the post of a Director as long back as on 01.01.2016, continuation of the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned, would tantamount to an abuse of the process of law warranting interference by this Court.

¶57