IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4508/2018 BETWEEN:
G. MANIVACHAGAM FORMER IRS (C&E), M.COM, MBA, LLB, FORMER ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, SHANTA COMPLEX, NO.20, LADY CURZON ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
(BY SRI. DIWAKAR K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE HIGH GROUNDS POLICE, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. CHRISTIAN CHANDRA MOHAN NO.234/202, FARAH RESIDENCY, 4TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, DEFENCE COLONY, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP;
SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2124/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 420, 120B OF IPC REGISTERED BY HIGH GROUNDS P.S., PENDING BEFORE THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1 in C.C.No.2124/2016 which has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC by the High Grounds Police Station and pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, has sought for quashing of said proceedings.
2. Brief facts of the case are: second respondent herein filed a complaint on 06.09.2014 with the High Grounds Police Station alleging that 7 months prior to the complaint one Sri. Bala Kanwaljit Singh (accused No.2), resident of Chandigarh, was introduced by the petitioner to him and believing his words that money that is going to be invested would be doubled within a period of six days, complainant invested `62,30,000/- on 21.02.2014 by cheque and transferred a sum of `30,00,000/- by RTGS on 09.04.2014 and further sum of `24,00,000/- on 09.04.2014 and another sum of `42,00,000/- was also transferred. Thus, complainant claimed that he had invested a total sum of `1,58,30,000/- with accused No.2 who had promised to pay back a sum of `3,50,00,000/- in six working days and as he failed to do so, complaint came to be lodged which was registered in Cr.No.261/2014 and on completion of investigation, charge sheet also has been filed for the aforesaid offences. Hence, petitioner is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
3. I have heard arguments of Sri.K.Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.S.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
4. It is the contention of Sri.K.Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that petitioner is innocent of the offences and even on plain reading of the complaint it would indicate that petitioner is neither the propagator nor disseminator in the entire case and dispute, if any, between complainant and second respondent is purely of civil in nature, inasmuch as, for return of money, which is purported to have been received by accused No.2, has been sought to be refunded by him by issuance of cheque, which is since returned unpaid, as a result it may attract the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at the most and as such, he would contend that continuation of present proceedings before trial Court would amount to petitioner undergoing ordeal of trial twice for the same incident. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing the proceedings pending in C.C.No.2124/2016 (arising out of Crime No.261/2014).
5. He would also submit that by way of alibi petitioner has relied on the hotel bill dated 21.02.2014 – Annexure-H issued in the name of petitioner, which would indicate that on the alleged date i.e., on 21.02.2014 petitioner was not at all at Bangalore and as such, continuation of proceedings against petitioner, which is now pending before IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, would be an abuse of process of law and prays for quashing of proceedings pending in C.C.No.2124/2016.
6. Per contra Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent – State and Sri. S.Balakrishnana, learned counsel appearing for second respondent would contend that petitioner along with accused No.2 had hatched a conspiracy to cheat the complainant – second respondent with an assurance of doubling the money had received substantial amount i.e., a total sum of `1,58,30,000/-, for which second accused had issued cheque and this itself is an indicator to the fact that intend to deceive the complaint was in existence when they hatched criminal conspiracy and as such, there is no good ground to quash the proceedings. Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it would indicate that complainant has specifically contended in his complaint dated 06.08.2014 alleging that petitioner herein, who is a retired (IRS) (C&CE) Officer had approached him to invest money with his old friend-Sri. Bala Kanwaljit Singh (accused No.2) with an assurance of high returns in a short span of time. He has specifically contended that in February 2014 petitioner convinced the complainant to proceed to Chandigarh to meet accused No.2. He also alleges that on 21.02.2014 he met both the accused at Ashoka Hotel, Palace Road, Bangalore, to finalise the transaction and thereafter on their assurance, he had transferred money i.e., a sum of `1,58,30,000/- by cheque and RTGS transfer.
8. Section 420 of IPC being attracted, the ingredients which the prosecution will have to prove with regard to dishonestly inducing a person to deliver any property to any person, in other words, prosecution has to establish the intention of accused to deceive the complainant or in other words mens rea should be established. In the instant case, complainant has specifically alleged that petitioner, who is a good friend of him, had assured him high returns of the money that he would be investing and thereby he had induced him to part with the money, which he did by paying the amount to accused No.2. That apart, prosecution having invoked Section 120B of IPC, it is needless to state it would be applicable to those who were the members of conspiracy and also during its continuance. These are all issues namely, existence of mens rea, inducement, alleged criminal conspiracy hatched by both the accused, which will have to be thrashed out by a full fledged trial. On the basis of a hotel bill which the petitioner relies upon as alibi to prove his absence at Bangalore on the date of alleged incident be in the realm of consideration by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is a matter for evidence and as such, prosecution which has been initiated against petitioner and other accused persons cannot be allowed to be stalled by the petitioner.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that there is no good ground to entertain this petition. As such petition stands dismissed. Since complaint is of the year 2014 and it is said to be at the stage of framing of charge, learned trial Judge shall make all endeavours to dispose of the matter expeditiously, and at any rate, within six (6) months from the date of commencement of trail.
In view of petition having been dismissed, I.A.No.2/2018 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR/RU