IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3594/2018 BETWEEN:
MR. RITESH ANAND S/O NAWIN KUMA JHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NEAR IMATHA TEMPLE ROAD, SAI PAYING GUEST NEAR SILK BOARD JUNCTION BANGALORE – 560 102.
(BY SRI. MANOHAR B.K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASUR P.S., REP. BY SSP, HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. SATYAM KUMAR S/O DILIP KUMAR DWIVEDI R/AT 'D' BLOCK, SBB TOUCHSTONE APARTMENT, WHITE FIELD BANGALORE – 560 066.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.20/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406 AND 420 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE (HALASUR POLICE, BENGALURU) THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Manohar B.K, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing first respondent-State. Perused the records. Notice to second respondent is not issued since petition is being dismissed at the threshold without being admitted for the reasons indicated hereinbelow.
2. Second respondent has lodged a complaint on 13.01.2018 with Halasuru Police Station alleging that he and petitioner-accused were working in Ericson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. and having joined said company on the same date i.e., on 08.09.2016 they were staying together in a paying guest accommodation. It is alleged by the complainant that at the instance and instigation of petitioner-accused he paid a sum of `2,39,000/- by borrowing personal loan from the Bank as the accused had called him and informed him that if he is interested in business related to cost optimization in which he would be able to earn `6 Crores and as such reposing trust and faith, said money was paid to petitioner and complainant has borrowed said amount from bank and for repayment of said loan complainant is paying Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) @ `5,687/- per month. On payment of said money to the accused he came to know that accused was involved in chain business Q-Net where the only way to earn money is “Adding people by giving false information and lies” and as such, having realized the mistake he demanded the repayment of said amount from the accused and a sum of `1 Lakh was paid and remaining amount was not paid. As such he sought for suitable action being taken against the petitioner-accused including repayment of said amount. Said complaint has been registered by the jurisdictional police in Crime No.20/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and as such petitioner is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
3. Quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where complaint does not disclose offence or it is frivolous. If the allegations does not disclose offence alleged on which cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate, it would be open for this Court to quash the proceedings. However, at the stage of consideration of such plea, it is not necessary that analysis of the case should be done by this Court before the trial Court could examine such material. If it appears on a meaningful reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein offence being disclosed there would be no justification for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction.
4. Defences that may be available or facts/ aspects, which when established may lead to acquittal, would also not be a ground to quash the proceedings at the threshold. Only question relevant at that stage would be as to whether averments/allegations made in the complaint spell out the ingredients of offence or not? The correctness or otherwise of the said allegation has to be decided either after investigation or at the stage of trial, as the case may be. That apart, complaint filed alleging criminal offence cannot be quashed only on the ground that allegations made therein appear to be of civil nature. If the allegations made in the complaint would also cover the aspect of criminality, civil flavour, if any would also gets eclipsed and that by itself would not be a ground for this Court to quash the proceedings. In this background, complaint in question when perused discloses prima facie offences alleged against the petitioner. As such contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner to the effect that ingredients of offence alleged by the complainant is absent or dispute is of civil nature, cannot be accepted.
5. In light of above discussion, this Court finds there is no good ground to entertain this petition.
Hence, same stands rejected. However, liberty is granted to petitioner to seek for discharge by filing appropriate application before the trial Court and in the event of such an application being filed, learned trial Judge shall examine the same without being influenced by any observation made in this order.
SD/- JUDGE DR