IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.3663 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. NIIT LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT 8, BALAJI ESTATE, FIRST FLOOR GURU RAVIDASS MARG KALKAJI NEW DELHI AND ALSO HAVING ITS OFFICE AT M/S. NIIT LTD., 38, 4TH ‘B’ CROSS 5TH BLOCK INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI RAJESH DS (BY SHRI MAHESH .S., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE SUB-INSPECTOR ASHOKNAGAR RANGE BANGALORE (BY SHRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA) ---
... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.35451/11 (GM-RES) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The only substantive prayer in the writ petition filed by the appellant reads thus:
“(a) Issue an order, writ or certiorari quashing the criminal proceedings C.C.No.679/2011 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayohall, M.G.Road, Bangalore in Annexure-C which is in the name of the Manager-Commercial of the Petitioner Company Accused No.2;”
3. Apart from the fact that the prayer is for quashing the criminal proceedings which indicates that the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge even under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was invoked, the appellant cannot be an aggrieved party to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings against it Manager. Even assuming that the name of the Manager-Commercial of the appellant is mentioned in the charge sheet, only the person holding the said post will have a locus to challenge the criminal proceedings.
4. The allegation in the criminal proceedings is that a vehicle was involved in the offences punishable under Sections 11, 13, 14 and Sections 32(1), 38(A) and 43(A) of the Excise Act, 1965. The learned Single Judge has noted in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that the averment made in the writ petition was that the appellant had purchased the said vehicle in the name of the Manager-Commercial and in fact, the Registration Certificate of the involved vehicle stands in the name of the Manager-Commercial of NIIT company.
5. Apart from the fact that a writ appeal will not be maintainable as Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also invoked, assuming that only Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invoked, it is not possible to find fault with the view taken by the learned Single Judge when he rejected the petition. After perusing paragraph 8 of the petition and after noting the accepted position that the vehicle involved in the alleged offences is registered in the name of the Manager-Commercial of NIIT company, the learned Single Judge rightly observed that the appellant has withheld the name of the Manager-Commercial. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
6. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the veracity of the allegations made in the criminal case and all contentions are kept open to be decided by the Competent Court.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN