IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NO.35451 OF 2011 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S.NIIT LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
B-234, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI AND ALSO HAVING A BRANCH AT:
M/S.NIIT LTD., 3RD FLOOR, CORPORATE NO.3 RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI ANTHONY R. ANTIC … PETITIONER (BY SRI S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE SUB-INSPECTOR ASHOKNAGAR RANGE BANGALORE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL SPP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.679/211 (ANNEXURE-C) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT-I, MAYOHALL, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE, WHICH IS IN THE NAME OF THE MANAGER-COMMERCIAL OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY-ACCUSED NO.2 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. Perused the records.
2. This writ petition is filed by M/s.NIIT Limited represented by its authorised signatory Sri Anthony R. Antic. The relief claimed in the petition reads as follows:
“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. The chargesheet in CC.No.679/2011 is filed against the Manager-Commercial, M/s.NIIT Limited, Corporate No.3, III Floor, Richmond Road, Bengaluru- 560 025 - owner of the vehicle, on the ground that the vehicle bearing registration No.KA 04 L 526 was involved in the offences punishable under Sections 11, 13, 14 and 32(1), 38(A) and 43(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
4. The petitioner-Company is not an accused in the above charge sheet, as such the petitioner has no locus standi to seek quashing of the proceedings in CC.No.679/2011. The averments made in the petition go to show that the petitioner-Company had purchased the aforesaid two wheeler in the name of the “Manager- Commercial”. The RC of the involved vehicle also stood in the name of “Manager-Commercial of NIIT Company” as on the date of commission of the alleged offence. The petitioner therefore, was bound to disclose the name of the person who was occupying the position of Manager-Commercial, as on that date. Instead of furnishing requisite information called for by the Police, the petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings, which indicate that the petitioner has been espousing the cause of the RC owner and trying to shield the offender by concealing his name and identity. The contention urged by the petitioner that the vehicle in question was purchased under a Scheme floated by the Company cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings as long as the RC stands in the name of the Manager- Commercial NIIT Ltd. The Manager-Commercial/RC owner is not before this Court. In the said circumstance, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed at the instance of the petitioner. The petition therefore, is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
5. At this stage, learned Counsel refers to pleadings in para-8 of the petition and submits that to the extent pleaded therein, relief has to be given to the petitioner. Para-8 of the petition reads as under:
“8. It is submitted that, as seen in the order sheet as well as in the charge sheet, the Accused No.2 shown is the Manager Commercial, NIIT LTD, Corporate No.3, 3rd floor, Richmond Road, Bangalore-25 while no name is given. However, pursuant to the issuance of the non- bailable warrant by the learned Magistrate, the Respondent police are visiting Petitioner’s Bangalore office and demanding the Petitioner to furnish a name of the person who is the manager Commercial as they have to execute the non bailable warrant.”
6. From the above averments, it is clear that the petitioner is deliberately withholding the name of the RC owner with an intent to screen the real offender which itself is an offence. As the vehicle registered in the name of the Manager-Commercial NIIT Ltd., having been used for the commission of the alleged offence, there is no reason to quash the impugned proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE LB/rs