IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NO.15123 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. C.R. VENKATESH S/O. LATE C.V. RAMU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OWNER OF LORRY R/O. NO.825 NAIDY STREET CHIKKAMAGALUR TOWN.
2. MOHAN S/O. NAGARAJA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OWNER OF PHARMACEUTICAL SHOP R/O. KALIDASANAGAR CHIKMAGALUR TOWN.
3. ABDUL S/O. MUJEEB AGED 37 YEARS TAILORING WORK R/O. SANTA MARKET AJEEZ LANE CHIKAMAGALUR TOWN./ 4. GIRISH N.T.
S/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS FINANCE WORK AND PARTNER OF GREEN HOTEL R/O. RATNAGIRI ROAD OPPOSITE TO K.E.B. QUARTERS CHIKAMAGALUR 5. KANCHANAGOUDA S/O. J.D. KISHORE AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O. NEHARU NAGAR 3RD CROSS, MALLANDURU ROAD CHIKAMAGALUR TOWN 6. CHETHAN S. @ CHETHAN SHET AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O. NO. 469, ‘B’ 15TH CROSS IDEAL HOMES, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU ALSO AT: AADI BHOTHAPPA BEEDI VIJAYAPURA AND B.V. SHET JEWELLERY M.G. ROAD CHIKAMAGALUR.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: S BASAVARAJ S. SAPPANNAVAR FOR SRI. B.V. GANESH NAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE BASAVANAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU.
2. ARAVIND S/O. V.B. KUAREGOUDA R/O. KUDUVALLI VILLAGE CHIKMAGALURU TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: DILDAR SHIVALLI, HCGP FOR R1 ARUNA SHYAM. M, ADV., FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.14/2017 AT ANNEX-B IN RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE STATION BASING ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY R-
1 AT ANNEX-A PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. C.J.M. COURT, CHIKMAGALUR SO FAR AS THESE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
2. Petitioners have sought to quash the FIR in Cr.No.14/2017 registered for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 120B Indian Penal Code, section 78(3) of The Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and section 66D of The Information Technology Act, 2000 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ submits that the petitioners were not named in the FIR; they were arrested on 17.02.2010 and produced before the Court; the allegations made in the remand application do not disclose commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners and hence, the FIR in question is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that prima-facie material is available in proof of involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences and hence there is no ground to quash the proceedings.
5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that FIR was registered initially against four accused persons on the ground that the accused named therein were involved in cricket betting. In the course of investigation, the investigating agency having found the involvement of the petitioners herein, they have been arrested and produced before the Court. In the said circumstances, it is premature to say that the allegations made against the petitioners do not attract any of the offences alleged against them. Matter is under investigation. No exceptional circumstances are made out by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings initiated against them. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge any adverse report submitted by the investigating agency.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-