Mr. Raghavendra M Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 22434 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. RAGHAVENDRA M., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O MARIYAPPA, R/A NO. 15/17, 17^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, K. P. AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560023

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SMT. MONISHA N.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY MANGALURU EAST POLICE STATION, D. K. DISTRICT 575204 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560001

¶14

MR MARUTHI S. V., PSI MANGALURU EAST POLICE STATION, KADRI HILLS MANGALORE CITY, KARNATAKA 574142

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1, R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL CASE IN S.C.NO.86/2020 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶19

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 170, 171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 36 R/W 149 INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTION 3 AND 25 OF THE ARMS ACT AND SECTION 7 OF THE STATE EMBLEM OF INDIA (PROHIBITION OF IMPROPER USE) ACT 2005 AND SECTION 2(H) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 AS FAR AS ACCUSED NO.13/PETITIONER IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in S.C.No.86/2020 arising out of Crime No.109/2019 registered by the 1^st respondent – police, pending on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 36 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 and Section 2(H) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶24

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner viz., Raghavendra M., was arraigned as accused No.13

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶27

in S.C.No.86/2020 along with accused Nos.1 to 12, 14 and 15, pursuant to FIR in Crime No.109/2019. The offences alleged against the petitioners and other accused are under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 36 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 and Section 2(H) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶28

In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the orders of co-ordinate Benches of this Court passed in the cases of G. Moideen @ Cheriyan - Crl.R.P.No.140/2023 dated 23.08.2023, Muzaffar Ahmed Vs. The State of Karnataka – W.P.No.51866/2019 dated 03.08.2022, sri. H.H. Srimad Raghavendra Theertha swamiji – Crl.P.No.8667/2019 dated 12.11.2020 and Mr. S.A.K. Abdul Lathief Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.5654/2024 dated 03.12.2024 , in order to point out that in view of quashment of criminal proceedings qua accused Nos.8, 9, 11 and 7, respectively, the present petitioner, who is accused No.13 S.C.No.86/2020 would be entitled to seek parity and consequent quashment of proceedings against him.

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶31

5. This Court in the case of G. Moideen @ Cheriyan -

¶32

Crl.R.P.No.140/2023 dated 23.08.2023 , quashed the criminal proceedings qua accused No.8 (in S.C.No.86/2020) and held as under:

¶33

“Revision petitioner, who is Accused No.8 in S.C.No.86/2020 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, is impugning the order dated 08.11.2022, whereby the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., praying to discharge him for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 420, 36 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC' ), and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act 2005, is rejected.

¶34

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶35

3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the suo motu FIR registered by Mangaluru East Police the investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences. The contention of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that a credible information was received by the police that accused No.1 was projecting himself as the Director of National Crime Investigation Bureau (for short 'the NCIB' ) and using the Car with the Board and Emblem of the State to make believe him as the Director of the National Investigation Agency and was

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶38

intending to extract money from the general public. Accused No.9 even though knew that accused No.1 is not a Government Official, he joined hands with him to extract money from one Girish Rai and Imtiaz promising to pay 20% commission. In that regard, accused Nos.1 and 9 have conspired together along with accused Nos.10 and 11 by meeting in a Hotel at Madiwala, Bengaluru. They have also conspired to de-thrown the Pontiff of Kashimath and to recover the amount from him, which he had taken from Karnataka Bank Limited and also to get a favourable order in favour of accused No.11. Accused No.1 along with accused Nos.12 to 14 conspired in the office of accused No.1 and agreed to share the booty after commission of the offence. Accused Nos.1, 9, 10 and 11 have conspired with accused Nos.12 to 15 to commit the offence. Accused Nos.2 to 6 have joined accused No.1 as his body guards and took Mahendra TUV 300 Car with the Board as Director NCIB with the Emblem of the Central Investigation Agency and came to Mangaluru on 15.08.2019.

¶39

4. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that it was accused Nos.7 and 8, who booked the room for accused No.1 in Sai Arya Lodge and on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m. accused Nos. 1 to 8 have held a meeting in Room No.201 of Sai Arya Lodge. Accused No.1 was armed with 4.5 pistol. Accused No.2 was having revolver with 8 live bullets and they conspired with accused Nos.9, 10 and 11 and they made preparation to commit dacoit. It was accused Nos.1 and 12 to 14 with an intention to cheat the general public by projecting accused No.1 as the Director of the Central

¶40

6 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶42

Investigation Agency tried to extract and gulp the money and thereby they have committed the offences as stated above.

¶43

5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the accused Nos.8 and 13 appeared before the trial Court in response to the summons and filed their application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. praying for their discharge. The Trial Court after considering the materials on record passed the impugned order dated 08.11.2022 dismissing the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.8 is before this Court.

¶44

6. Heard Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondent. Perused the entire material on record.

¶45

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contented that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.8. The only allegation made against accused No.8 is that he booked Room No.201 in Sai Arya Lodge, Mangaluru, for the stay of accused No.1 and he held a meeting with him. But the statement of CWs.4 and 5, who are the owners of the Sai Arya Lodge in question have referred to accused No.7 as the person, who called them to book the room for accused No.1 referring him to be the Director of NCIB. They never referred to the name of accused No.8 that he booked the room for accused No.1. The statement of CWs.4 and 5 is to the effect that in the evening accused No.8 had accompanied accused No.7 and met accused No.1 in the room. If the said contention of the prosecution is accepted as it is, none of the penal provisions

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶48

invoked by the prosecution would stand the test of the trial and they have no prima facie material against the accused No.8. Therefore, accused No.8, who is the petitioner herein is to be discharged.

¶49

8. Learned counsel further submitted that accused No.9 had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.51866/2019 (GM-RES), which came to be allowed vide order dated 03.08.2022 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and criminal proceedings against him was quashed. Similarly accused No.11 approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.8667/2019, which also came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.11.2020 quashing the criminal proceedings against him. Under such circumstances, the petitioner against whom there is absolutely nothing on record to invoke any of the penal provisions is entitled for discharge. Accordingly he prays for allowing this criminal revision petition and to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

¶50

9. Per contra, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that the allegations made against accused Nos.1 to 15 is of serious nature. On credible information the Police came to know that accused No.1 conspired with other accused and camped in '(Mangaluru)', Room No.201 of Sai Arya Lodge '(Mangaluru)' and this petitioner along with accused No.7 booked the room for his stay and also arranged meetings with the other accused. It is nothing but a conspiracy between one another and therefore, the petitioner is also one of the party to the

¶51

8 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶53

conspiracy and is liable to be tried. It is premature to form an opinion that there are no materials against the petitioner and therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.

¶54

10. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is :

¶55

"Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from infirmity and perversity and calls for interference by this Court.?"

¶56

My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the following :

¶57

REASONS

¶58

11. The specific contention of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that the accused conspired together and accused No.1 armed with revolver projected himself as the Director of NCIB arranged the Car with the Board and Emblem to suit the said designation, accompanied by accused Nos. 2 to 6 as his body guards and conspired with accused Nos.9 to 15 to extract money from the general public. The specific allegation made against the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.8 is that he along with accused No.7 booked Room No.201 at Sai Arya Lodge for the stay of Accused No.1 and on 16.08.2019 he met accused No.1 along with accused No.7 and participated in the meeting that was held in the said room.

¶59

9 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶61

12. My attention was drawn to the statements of CWs.4 and 5, who are said to be the owners of Sai Arya Lodge. The witnesses specifically state that it was accused No.7, who called and requested to book a Room for the Director of NCIB i.e, accused No.1 and on the basis of such request they booked the room. Thereafter, accused No.1 along with other accused came there. This petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.8 came to the said Sai Arya Lodge on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m. and participated in the meeting that was held by accused Nos.1 to 8. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that it was this petitioner, who booked the room does not find any support in the charge sheet materials. As a result, the only allegation that remains against the petitioner is that he met accused No.1 in Room No.201 of Sai Arya Lodge on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m. and was present in the meeting. If this contention of the prosecution is to be accepted as it is, none of the penal provisions invoked by the Investigating Officer could be made applicable against the petitioner.

¶62

13. It is also to be noted that even in the voluntary statement of accused No.1, he refers to accused No.7 with whom he requested to get a room booked in Mangaluru and does not refer to accused No.8. Accused No.1 in his voluntary statement only states that accused No.8 had accompanied accused No.7 and visited him in Mangaluru. When no semblance of commission of offence goes against the petitioner, except saying that he met accused No.1 in the Hotel Room, I am of the opinion, that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner/accused No.8

¶63

10 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶65

for any of the above provisions. Under such circumstances, he is entitled for discharge.

¶66

14. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the trial Court. It has not considered the materials on record against the present petitioner to form an opinion that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner to constitute any of the offences. Even if the allegations made in the charge sheet are to be accepted as it is, none of the penal provisions could be invoked and there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner/accused No.8.

¶67

15. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to the pass the following :-

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i) The revision petition is allowed.

¶70

ii) Criminal proceedings initiated against accused No.8 in S.C.No.86/2020 for the offence punishable under punishable under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 420, 36 r/w Section 149 of IPC, and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, is quashed.

¶71

iii) Petitioner/Accused No.8 is discharged for the above said offences.”

¶72

11 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶74

6. This Court in the case of Muzaffar Ahmed Vs. The

¶75

State of Karnataka – W.P.No.51866/2019 dated 03.08.2022, , quashed the criminal proceedings qua accused No.9 (in C.C.No.2537/2019) and held as under:

¶76

“1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶77

a. To call for records.

¶78

b. Issue writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing THE entire proceedings in CC No.2537/2019 for the offence punishable under section 170, 171, 419, 120(B), 109, 399, 402, 420 and 36 r/w 149 of IPC and section 3 and 25 of Arms Act and section 7 of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 of Mangaluru East Police, on the file of VI JMFC at Mangaluru East Police, on the file of VI JMFC at Mangaluru and further consequences thereon, which is produced at Annexure-A and the charge sheet at AnnexureG in the interest of justice and equity.

¶79

c. Issue any order/s or direction in the above case as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶80

2. On 16.08.2019 at 5.00 pm upon receiving certain information, the respondent-police had submitted a requisition to the Court seeking permission to register a complaint and raid the premises where certain persons were stated to be staying claiming to be NCIB directors, the police officials reached the said spot at 5.30 p.m, when the persons there seeing the police ran away with their car. However, the police were able to nab them and thereafter interrogated

¶81

12 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶83

those person, who revealed their respective names. At that time, upon a search of one Boppanna, a revolver was recovered with 8 live cartridges apart from certain monies and mobile phones. Further recoveries were made and thereafter a case came to be registered for offences under Sections 170, 171, 419, 420, 120-B, 399, 406 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 25 of Arms Act and State Emblem of India Act, 2005, on which basis Cr. No.109/2019 came to be registered.

¶84

3. During the course of investigation, the respondentpolice recorded evidence of various persons wherein certain information as regards the involvement of the accused therein was made known to the police. One of the statement which has been made by CW-9 Abdul Sheriff is that he had been introduced by the petitioner to one Mr.Girish Rai, and from time to time paid 1,07,00,000/- was paid to Mr.Girish Rai to settle the case of the brother of the said Abdul Sheriff against whom certain proceedings had been taken by the Investigation Officer at Bangalore International Airport, while illegally transporting gold. The said CW-9 had stated that despite amount having been received, the said case has not been settled and therefore, they had followed up again with the petitioner and then the said Abdul Sheriff visited the office of the petitioner, at that time, one Sam peter, accused No.1 was present in his office and that the petitioner introduced the said CW-9 to accused No.1.

¶85

4. It is alleged that the petitioner had informed Mr.Abdul Sheriff that he could contact accused No.1 for any job or any

¶86

13 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶88

requirement, in furtherance of which the said accused No.1 had contacted CW-9 from time to time. On the basis of the said statement, a charge sheet has been laid implicating the petitioner as accused No.9. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶89

5. Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that a reading of the entire charge sheet and/or the various witnesses’ statement which have been produced along with it would not in any manner implicate the petitioner as regards the aforesaid offences inasmuch as Section 170 and 171 relating to impersonation of a public servant would not be applicable since there is no allegation as against the petitioner for having impersonated the public servant. Insofar as Section 399 and 402 of IPC, he submits that there is no dacoity or preparation of dacoity which is alleged against the petitioner. As regards the offences under Section 419 and 420 of IPC, he submits that no one has complained of the petitioner having induced anybody or cheated anybody. There being no such complaint against the petitioner, the question of invoking offences under Section 419 and 420 of IPC would not arise. As regards Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, he submits that no arm has been seized or recovered from the petitioner to attract any of those offences and as regards offence under Section 7 of State Emblem of India Act, he submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner to have made use of any emblem in a manner contrary to that prescribed under the State Emblem of India Act, 2005.

¶90

14 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶92

6. He submits that the only reference which has been made is as regards the petitioner knowing the said Sam Peter. Knowing a person is not an offence, unless there is any allegation which has been made of any offences having been committed. On these grounds he submits that the petition be allowed and proceedings be quashed.

¶93

7. Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP would submit that the investigation having been completed and charge sheet having been laid, the matter requires trial, at this stage this Court ought no to intercede in the matter and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶94

8. Heard Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP for the respondent. Perused papers.

¶95

9. The allegations made against the petitioner have been reproduced hereinabove, so also the arguments of Sri. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel. A reading of the charge sheet and witness statement only indicates that the petitioner was known to accused No.1-Sam Peter. The allegations are against Sam Peter and certain others having committed offences and or making preparations for committing an offence. In respect of the said alleged offences, a reading of the witnesses’ statement, more particularly that of CW-9 which has been relied upon to implicate the petitioner does not indicate any particular offence having been committed by the petitioner, not any overt-tact having been committed by the petitioner. As submitted by Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel,

¶96

15 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶98

none of the ingredients of the offences under Section 170, 171, 149, 420, 399 and 402 of IPC have been made out. Hence, the question of invoking Section 120-B or 149 in respect of the petitioner would not arise.

¶99

10. Furthermore, there is no material on record to implicate the petitioner insofar the offences under Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act and Section 7 of the State Emblem Act has been placed on record. In view thereof, I am of the considered view that insofar as the present complaint is concerned as regards the aforesaid allegations, none of those allegations having been established, hence the question of continuing the criminal prosecution would not be in the interest of justice. The matter would have been different if there is any particular allegation made against the petitioner for having cheated any person and/or being involved in any of other offences being overt tact attributed to the petitioner.

¶100

11. In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶101

ORDER

¶102

i. The petitioner is allowed.

¶103

ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.805/2020 pending before the VI JMFC at Mangaluru insofar as the petitioner is concerned is quashed.

¶104

iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed its opinion as regards the other accused.”

¶105

16 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶107

This Court in the case of Sri. H.H. Srimad Raghavendra Theertha swamiji – Crl.P.No.8667/2019 dated 12.11.2020, quashed the criminal proceedings qua accused No.11 (in C.C.No.2537/2019) and held as under:

¶108

1. Sri Srinivas Rao S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks for two weeks’ time to comply with the office objections. He however requests for the matter to be taken up for hearing pending compliance due to urgency.

¶109

2. The office objections are not coming in the way of consideration of above matter. His request is acceded to and the matter is taken up for hearing.

¶110

3. Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned HCGP accepts notice for the respondents.

¶111

4. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the Charge-sheet and also the proceedings insofar as petitioner is concerned in C.C.

¶112

No.2537/2019 registered for the offences under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 399, 402 and 149 of the IPC and Section 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Section 7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, pending on the file of JMFC (IV Court), Bengaluru.

¶113

5. The 1st respondent police on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m., registered a First Information Report in Crime No.109/2019 based on the written information of the 2nd respondent against the eight accused for the aforesaid

¶114

17 -

¶115

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶116

offences. The petitioner has initially not been arrayed as an accused in the said crime. Subsequent thereto a raid was conducted at a Lodge where accused No.1 was stated to be sitting and many papers and documents including revolvers, bullets, mobile phones were recovered during the said raid. In the raid there was a complaint said to be lodged by the petitioner/accused No.11 with accused No.1 which was recovered.

¶117

6. The background of the case being that accused No.1 and certain of the other accused had claimed to be working with the National Crime Investigation Bureau. The 1st accused represented himself to be the Director of the said Bureau and certain of the other accused claimed to be working for the Bureau. They also had a Mahindra Car which had a board with inscription ‘Govt. of India, Director NCIB’. It is alleged that the 1st accused and the other accused have approached various people calling upon them to come up with their grievances which could be resolved by them. On receipt of the said grievances and complaints, the 1st accused and others are alleged to have extracted money from the complainant and from the persons against whom complaint has been filed, as regards which respondent No.2 had received complaints and was being investigated.

¶118

7. Coming back to the documents seized during the course of the raid, being a complaint filed by the petitioner herein as the 1st accused the same is relating to certain disputes in the Mutt of which the petitioner is the Peethadipathi.

¶119

18 -

¶120

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶121

8. Sri Srinivas Rao S., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner genuinely and bonafidly believing that, the 1st accused was in fact a Director of the NCIB had submitted his complaint to the 1st accused requiring Police Assistance and intervention in investigation as also protection to the 1st petitioner. He submits that reading of the entire complaint filed by the petitioner would not indicate any offence by the petitioner and/or request for commission of any offence by the 1st accused. He further submits that at the most the petitioner himself is a victim of the fraud played by the 1^st accused and his accomplishes and inasmuch as the petitioner has taken the representation made by the 1st accused and submitted his complaint for necessary action to be taken against the 1^st accused.

¶122

9. Sri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in the above background it is not required for the respondent to array the petitioner as accused, since the entire investigation and the charge-sheet laid would not indicate any allegations insofar as the petitioner is concerned, except the complaint filed by the petitioner - 11th accused with the 1st accused for resolution of certain disputes and/or for protection.

¶123

10. In view of the above, he submits that the petitioner also being targeted and charged for the offences that are charged against the 1st accused, which is required to be quashed.

¶124

19 -

¶125

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶126

11. Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned HCGP for the respondent-State submits that during the course of investigation the letter was found and the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the investigation carried out, therefore, the petitioner is required to stand trial and he cannot seek for quashing of the proceedings.

¶127

12. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records.

¶128

13. A perusal of all papers indicate that, the only allegation insofar as the petitioner-accused No.11 is concerned, is a complaint said to be filed by the petitioner with 1st accused requesting the 1st accused who had claimed himself as the Director of the NCIB, to provide protection to the petitioner, as also not to investigate into various complaints and to await the judgment of the Court where the dispute between the petitioner and other Officers of the Mutt is pending.

¶129

14. A reading of the entire charge-sheet and of the written complaint which have been recovered, does not indicate any other allegations against the petitioner/accused No.11, except what is stated above.

¶130

15. The Investigation Officer has arrayed the petitioner as an accused. It may be that the petitioner has tried to seek for the indulgence of the so called Director of the NCIB by virtue of which a complaint alleging offences under Sections 170, 171, 419, 399, 402 and 149 of the IPC and Sections 3

¶131

20 -

¶132

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶133

and 25 of the Indian Arms Act can not be made out nor an offence under Section 7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 was involved.

¶134

16. The Investigation Officer ought not to have initiated the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned but ascertained who are accused and who are witnesses there. At the most the petitioner could be a witness for the prosecution and not an accused. On enquiry Sri Srinivas Rao, learned counsel submits that if called upon, the petitioner would present himself as a witness during the course of trial against the accused.

¶135

17. Recording such a fair submission being made by Sri Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned for the aforesaid offences in C.C. No.2537/2019 pending on the file of the JMFC (VI Court), Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.”

¶136

This Court in the case of Mr. S.A.K. Abdul Lathief Vs.

¶137

The State of Karnataka and others – Crl.P.No.5654/2024 dated

¶138

03.12.2024, quashed the criminal proceedings qua accused No.7 (in C.C.No.S.C.No.86/2020) and held as under:

¶139

“ The petitioner - accused No.7 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.86/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 399, 402 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Sections 7 of

¶140

21 -

¶141

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶142

the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.

¶143

2. Heard H.S. Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶144

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that qua accused Nos.8 and 9, against whom graver allegations were made, have been quashed by the coordinate benches of this Court.

¶145

4. In the light of such quashment, the offence against accused No.7 would pale into insignificance is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶146

5. A perusal at the order passed by the coordinate bench, qua accused No.8 would be undoubtedly enure to the benefit of the petitioner to quash the proceedings on the same reason so rendered by the coordinate bench.

¶147

6. The Learned HCGP would not dispute the position in law, as is laid down by the coordinate bench in Crl.R.P.No.140/2023 disposed on 23.08.2023. The coordinate bench has held as follows.

¶148

"Revision petitioner, who is Accused No.8 in S.C.No.86/2020 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, is impugning the order dated

¶149

22 -

¶150

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶151

08.11.2022, whereby the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., praying to discharge him for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 420, 36 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC' ), and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act 2005, is rejected.

¶152

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶153

3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the suo motu FIR registered by Mangaluru East Police the investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences. The contention of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that a credible information was received by the police that accused No.1 was projecting himself as the Director of National Crime Investigation Bureau (for short 'the NCIB' ) and using the Car with the Board and Emblem of the State to make believe him as the Director of the National Investigation Agency and was intending to extract money from the general public. Accused No.9 even though knew that accused No.1 is not a Government Official, he joined hands with him to extract money from one Girish Rai and Imtiaz promising to pay 20% commission. In that regard, accused Nos.1 and 9 have conspired together along with accused Nos.10 and 11 by meeting in a Hotel at Madiwala, Bengaluru. They have also conspired to de-thrown the Pontiff of Kashimath and to recover the amount from him, which he had taken from Karnataka Bank Limited and also to get a favourable order in favour of accused No.11. Accused No.1 along with accused Nos.12 to 14 conspired in the office of accused No.1 and agreed to share the booty after commission of the offence. Accused Nos.1, 9, 10 and 11 have conspired with accused Nos.12 to 15 to commit the offence. Accused Nos.2 to 6 have joined accused No.1 as his body guards

¶154

23 -

¶155

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶156

and took Mahendra TUV 300 Car with the Board as Director NCIB with the Emblem of the Central Investigation Agency and came to Mangaluru on 15.08.2019.

¶157

4. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that it was accused Nos.7 and 8, who booked the room for accused No.1 in Sai Arya Lodge and on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m. accused Nos. 1 to 8 have held a meeting in Room No.201 of Sai Arya Lodge. Accused No.1 was armed with 4.5 pistol. Accused No.2 was having revolver with 8 live bullets and they conspired with accused Nos.9, 10 and 11 and they made preparation to commit dacoit. It was accused Nos.1 and 12 to 14 with an intention to cheat the general public by projecting accused No.1 as the Director of the Central Investigation Agency tried to extract and gulp the money and thereby they have committed the offences as stated above.

¶158

5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the accused Nos.8 and 13 appeared before the trial Court in response to the summons and filed their application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. praying for their discharge. The Trial Court after considering the materials on record passed the impugned order dated 08.11.2022 dismissing the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.8 is before this Court.

¶159

6. Heard Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondent. Perused the entire material on record.

¶160

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contented that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.8. The only allegation made against accused No.8 is that he booked Room No.201 in Sai Arya Lodge, Mangaluru, for the stay of accused No.1 and he held a meeting with him. But the

¶161

24 -

¶162

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶163

statement of CWs.4 and 5, who are the owners of the Sai Arya Lodge in question have referred to accused No.7 as the person, who called them to book the room for accused No.1 referring him to be the Director of NCIB. They never referred to the name of accused No.8 that he booked the room for accused No.1. The statement of CWs.4 and 5 is to the effect that in the evening accused No.8 had accompanied accused No.7 and met accused No.1 in the room. If the said contention of the prosecution is accepted as it is, none of the penal provisions invoked by the prosecution would stand the test of the trial and they have no prima facie material against the accused No.8. Therefore, accused No.8, who is the petitioner herein is to be discharged.

¶164

8. Learned counsel further submitted that accused No.9 had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.51866/2019 (GM-RES), which came to be allowed vide order dated 03.08.2022 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and criminal proceedings against him was quashed. Similarly accused No.11 approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.8667/2019, which also came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.11.2020 quashing the criminal proceedings against him. Under such circumstances, the petitioner against whom there is absolutely nothing on record to invoke any of the penal provisions is entitled for discharge. Accordingly he prays for allowing this criminal revision petition and to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

¶165

9. Per contra, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that the allegations made against accused Nos.1 to 15 is of serious nature. On credible information the Police came to know that accused No.1 conspired with other accused and camped in '(Mangaluru)', Room No.201 of Sai Arya Lodge '(Mangaluru)' and this petitioner along with accused No.7 booked the room for his stay and

¶166

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶167

25 -

¶168

also arranged meetings with the other accused. It is nothing but a conspiracy between one another and therefore, the petitioner is also one of the party to the conspiracy and is liable to be tried. It is premature to form an opinion that there are no materials against the petitioner and therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.

¶169

10. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is : "Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from infirmity and perversity and calls for interference by this Court.?"

¶170

My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the following :

¶171

REASONS

¶172

11. The specific contention of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that the accused conspired together and accused No.1 armed with revolver projected himself as the Director of NCIB arranged the Car with the Board and Emblem to suit the said designation, accompanied by accused Nos. 2 to 6 as his body guards and conspired with accused Nos.9 to 15 to extract money from the general public. The specific allegation made against the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.8 is that he along with accused No.7 booked Room No.201 at Sai Arya Lodge for the stay of Accused No.1 and on 16.08.2019 he met accused No.1 along with accused No.7 and participated in the meeting that was held in the said room.

¶173

12. My attention was drawn to the statements of CWs.4 and 5, who are said to be the owners of Sai Arya Lodge. The witnesses specifically state that it was accused No.7, who called and

¶174

26 -

¶175

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶176

requested to book a Room for the Director of NCIB i.e, accused No.1 and on the basis of such request they booked the room. Thereafter, accused No.1 along with other accused came there. This petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.8 came to the said Sai Arya Lodge on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m. and participated in the meeting that was held by accused Nos.1 to 8. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that it was this petitioner, who booked the room does not find any support in the charge sheet materials. As a result, the only allegation that remains against the petitioner is that he met accused No.1 in Room No.201 of Sai Arya Lodge on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m. and was present in the meeting. If this contention of the prosecution is to be accepted as it is, none of the penal provisions invoked by the Investigating Officer could be made applicable against the petitioner.

¶177

13. It is also to be noted that even in the voluntary statement of accused No.1, he refers to accused No.7 with whom he requested to get a room booked in Mangaluru and does not refer to accused No.8. Accused No.1 in his voluntary statement only states that accused No.8 had accompanied accused No.7 and visited him in Mangaluru. When no semblance of commission of offence goes against the petitioner, except saying that he met accused No.1 in the Hotel Room, I am of the opinion, that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner/accused No.8 for any of the above provisions. Under such circumstances, he is entitled for discharge.

¶178

14. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the trial Court. It has not considered the materials on record against the present petitioner to form an opinion that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner to constitute any of the offences. Even if the allegations made in the charge sheet are to

¶179

27 -

¶180

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶181

be accepted as it is, none of the penal provisions could be invoked and there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner/accused No.8.

¶182

15. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to the pass the following :-

¶183

ORDER

¶184

i) The revision petition is allowed.

¶185

ii) Criminal proceedings initiated against accused No.8 in S.C.No.86/2020 for the offence punishable under punishable under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 420, 36 r/w Section 149 of IPC, and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, is quashed.

¶186

iii) Petitioner/Accused No.8 is discharged for the above said offences."

¶187

In the light of the order passed by the coordinate bench as quoted hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by passing the following:

¶188

ORDER

¶189

01. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶190

02. Criminal proceedings initiated against accused No.7 in S.C.No.86/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 399, 402 r/w Section 149 of the IPC, and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 7 of the

¶191

28 -

¶192

NC: 2025:KHC:5936 WP No. 22434 of 2023

¶193

State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, stands quashed.”

¶194

In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that proceedings as against accused Nos.8, 9, 11 and 7 have been quashed by the aforesaid orders of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and consequently, by applying the doctrine of parity, proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.13 in this petition also deserves to be quashed.

¶195

In the result, I pass the following:

¶196

ORDER

¶197

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶198

(ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.86/2020 arising out of FIR in Crime No.109/2019 registered by the 1^st respondent – Police, pending on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 36 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 and Section 2(H) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, insofar as the petitioner-accused No.13 is concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶199

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶200

BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81

Mr. Raghavendra M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Raghavendra M v. the 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

Mr Chakrapani Muppala Vs Mr Satish Avani Nagarajasastry

Sri Mohammed Waseem H Vs State of Karnataka

Shivamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sushma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Padma N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N R Paramesh Vs the State by