IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NOS.22285-22286/2019(GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1.INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LTD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 31/9, KRIMSON SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ABOVE VISHAL MEGHA MART, NEAR CENTRAL SILK BOARD, BENGALURU-560 068 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT OFFICE AT RBR COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, MOODALAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 072 REP BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER MR.SANJEEV TANEJA.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDAN K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALGUNTE POLICE INSPECTOR BENGALURU-560 073.
2. KURUMURTHY D S/O KRISHNAIAH, NO.1826, A-53, 1ST CROSS, PRASHANTHA NAGARA, BEHIND AYYAPPA COMMUNITY HALL, T-DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057.
3. RAHUNATH B S/O BOMMALINGAIAH, NO.91, 7TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BHUWANESHWARINAGAR, T-DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057.
4. RAKESH M @ TATTO RAKHI S/O MURTHAPPA, R/AT NO.24/4, DINESH BUILDINGS, VINAYAKA EXTENSION, 1ST MAIN, NAGASANDA POST, BENGALURU-560 073.
5. SRI.PUTTA SIDDHU S/O GUTTHALEGOWDA NO.19, 2ND FLOOR, ANDHRAHALLI ARALIMARA CIRCLE, 4TH CROSS, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1; RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29.05.2019) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 05.04.2019 AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS, INITIATED BY R-1, BAGALAGUNTE POLICE, BENGALURU, WHICH ARE ENCLOSED AS PER ANNX-D AND ANNX-F.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner has filed the present writ petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 05.04.2019 and consequential proceedings initiated by first respondent – Bagalagunte Police, Bengaluru as per Annexures – D & F. It is the case of the petitioner that it is the financial institution having branches all over India, providing various financial services. Providing gold loan is one of such activities.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the complaint by one Kurumurthy and others for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 454 and 457 of IPC, the 1st respondent registered Crime No.329/2018 on 19.08.2018 and Crime No.359/2018 on 07.09.2018 and the matter is under investigation. During the course of investigation, the 1st respondent issued notice to the present petitioner vide Annexures – D & F.
3. It is further contended that the petitioner in response to notice (Annexure-D) issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., filed objection on 05.04.2019. In spite of the same, the 1st respondent again issued a second notice on 05.04.2019 directing the petitioner to return the mortgaged gold ornaments or cash realised by auction of such gold ornaments. Therefore petitioner is before the Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri K. Chandan, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petitions, contended that the petitioner is innocent and in no way connected to the alleged offences, he is totally a stranger and not liable to any acts committed by the accused persons mentioned in the FIR. It was further contended that the petitioner is a genuine institution providing various financial services and providing gold loan is one of its services and as such the petitioner – company after verifying details as per RBI guidelines has issued gold loan to one of the accused mentioned in the FIR. Therefore provisions of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. would not be attracted. He would further submit that in spite of objection filed to first notice dated 05.04.2019, the first respondent has not considered the same and has proceeded to issue second notice. Therefore he sought to allow the petitions.
6. Per contra, Sri Vijayakumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate, on taking notice to first respondent sought to justify the notices issued and contended that on the basis of the complaint made by Kurumurthy and others, two criminal cases are registered. Based on the voluntary statement made by the accused, the 1st respondent – Officer thought it fit to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for proper and fair investigation. Therefore he sought to reject the writ petitions.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that on the basis of the complaint made by one Kurumurthy and other complainants, the 1st respondent registered two criminal cases in Crime No.329/2018 on 10.01.2018 and Crime No.359/2018 on 07.09.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 454, 457 of IPC and matter is under investigation. On the voluntary statement made by accused persons, the first respondent issued notices to the present petitioner to produce the gold ornaments deposited by accused persons with the petitioner or the amount realised by auction of such gold ornaments. It is also not in dispute that in response to the notice issued, the petitioner filed objections on the same day i.e. 05.04.2019. It is the duty of the authority – 1st respondent to consider the objection and hold enquiry.
8. The 1st respondent again issued notice directing the petitioner either to produce gold ornaments received from the accused persons or the amount realised thereon. It is for the Investigating Officer to consider the objections and to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, record his statement and take a decision in accordance with law. Till such decision is taken, the first respondent shall not precipitate the matter as against the petitioner in pursuance of Annexures – D & F dated 15.04.2019.
9. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed off reserving liberty to the 1st respondent to consider objection to Annexure–D, objection to Annexure-F if any, record statement of the present petitioner and take a decision in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*