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.3595/2018 BETWEEN:
SHALINI RANJAN D/O TARUNLAL GUPTA R/AT PRESTIGE FERNS RESIDENCY, HALUR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 102.
(BY SRI. MANOHAR B.K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASUR P.S., REP. BY SSP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. PRATIK PURBEY S/O GOPAL PURBEY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. 343 6TH CROSS, NEELADRINAGARA ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALORE – 560 010.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.21/2018 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 Halasur Police Station alleging that he and petitioner-accused are known to each other from their school days and at the instance and instigation of petitioner had told the second respondent to invest the amount in the business to get more profits and further alleging that based on the said assurance, second respondent had transferred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- through online transaction from his account. 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 to trust me” and as such, having realized the mistake he demanded the repayment of said amount from the accused and said amount being not paid, he sought for suitable action being taken against the accused including for repayment of said amount. Said complaint has been registered by the jurisdictional police in Crime No.21/2018 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 for the case where complaint does not disclose any evidence or it is frivolous. If the allegations does not disclose offence set out on which the cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate, it would be open for this Court to quash the proceedings. However, at the stage of consideration it is not necessary that analysis of the case should be done by this Court before the trial Court could examine. If its appears on a reading of complaint and consideration of the allegations therein offence being disclosed that 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 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 a 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 alleged by the prosecution is being absent or dispute is of civil nature, cannot be accepted.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no good ground to entertain the 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 application being filed, learned trial Judge shall examine the same without being influenced by any observation made in this order.
SD/- JUDGE DR