IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7313 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SHRI M A RAJENDRA SON OF LATE ANANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT 369, 6TH CROSS, BCC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 040 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: S.SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI: UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THERMO TREATERS (INDIA) PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1 OF 1956 HAVING ITS FACTORY AND REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 49, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB SRI LAKSHMI DEVI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE-560 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRCTOR, MR K GOPLAKRISHNA MURTHY 2. THE STATION HOME OFFICER AMENDED VIDE COURT RMC YARD POLICE STATION, ORDER DTD 7.11.2015 RMC YARD, YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE-560022.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:RAJESH RAI K., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL SPP FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.21464/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IX A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned Senior counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
2. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner showing him as accused No.1 for the alleged offences under sections 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner (accused No.1) by making false representation that he has acquaintance with the officials of KIADB obtained cheques in the names of CWs-2 -5 for a total amount of Rs.16,65,000/- and appropriated said amount for himself.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is an Advocate by profession. Respondent No.1/complainant was his client. In the course of consultation, he referred the complainant to CWs-2 to 5 and a transaction was entered into between the complainant and CWs- 2 to 5. Petitioner herein was not a party to the said transaction. No money was received by the petitioner from the complainant. Going by the version of the complainant, the aforesaid cheques were drawn in the names of CWs-2 to 5. These transaction did not disclose any intention of cheating or deception right from inception so as to make out an offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code. Though initially, FIR was registered against CWs-2 to 5 under sections 506, 34, 120B and 420 Indian Penal Code, yet, after investigation, these provisions have been dropped, indicating that there is no material to sustain the alleged charges against the petitioner and hence the prosecution of the petitioner being illegal and an abuse of process of Court prays for quashing the impugned charge sheet in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Refuting the above argument, learned counsel for respondent No.2 took me through the material produced alongwith the charge sheet and highlighted that in the course of investigation, it revealed that whatsoever amount received by CWs-2 to 5 from the complainant was taken by the petitioner thereby enriching himself by inducing the complainant to part with the huge amount of Rs.16,65,000/-. Referring to the statements of CWs-2 to 5 coupled with the entries in the bank account of the petitioner, learned counsel emphasized that a prima facie case is made out for prosecution of the petitioner under section 420 Indian Penal Code and thus prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. On going through the material on record, as rightly submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, initially, FIR was registered against CWs-2 to 5 as well as the petitioner herein, but in the course of investigation, complainant himself having stated before the Court that at the time of lodging of the complaint, he was not aware of the fraud played by the petitioner, on the basis of his further statement, CWs-2 to 5 were shown as witnesses and the petitioner herein is made as prime accused. The material collected by the prosecution goes to show that the amount which was alleged to have been paid by the complainant was appropriated by the petitioner. At this juncture, though a defence is available to the petitioner to contend that the respondent was his client, yet, in the absence of any material to show the transaction in respect of which said amount was received by him, I do not find any reason to subscribe to the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioner. As the material on record and the allegations made in the charge sheet disclose that the complainant has been induced to part with substantial amount on the inducement of the petitioner and the said amount is shown to have been credited to the account of the petitioner, in my view, there is sufficient material to attract the ingredients of offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the argument of learned senior counsel in that regard. As a result, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the contentions urged by the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial court on such grounds available under law.
Further, having regard to the above circumstances, the trial court is directed to expedite the matter and conclude the trial within six months from the date of communication of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-