IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P.NO.7790/2018 BETWEEN SRI GURUDUTT T D S/O SATYANARAYANA AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.501, 2ND MAIN, 12TH CROSS, TELECOM LAYOUT, SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE JAKKUR, BANGALORE-560064.
(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.
2. SRI K RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE K KRISHNAMURTHY AGED 50 YEARS, NO.32, SAI NILAYA VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NEAR AMMA ASHRAMA ULLALA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560056.
...PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI HARISH PRABHU S, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7496/2018 (CRIME NO.138/2017 OF JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IX ACMM AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3 AND 4 OF PRICE CHIT AND MONEY CIRCULATION (BANNING) ACT AND SECTION 76 OF CHIT FUND ACT R/W 420 AND 34 OF IPC.
2. QUASH THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 07.03.2018, PASSED BY THE IX ACMM, AT BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.7496/2018.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent no.2–Complainant and the learned HCGP.
2. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner and accused no.1 who are husband and wife induced him to participate in running a chit. That the complainant actively participated on the belief that they had obtained appropriate license from the authorities. It is the case of the complainant that it was represented to him that accused nos.1 & 2 have obtained the necessary license under the Prize Chit and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 and that there is no legal impediment to run the chit scheme. That only in the year 2016, it came to light that the accused had not obtained any such license.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee in a private firm and is not aware of the actions of his wife and that even if the petition allegations are taken as correct, it is only accused no.1 who is alleged to be responsible for the alleged commission of offences.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP would take this Court through the statement of the witnesses, wherein the witness has volunteered and recorded her statement stating that the petitioner has also actively participated in encouraging the parties to join the chit scheme and has now cheated him of a sum of Rs.8 lakhs.
5. In the light of the said statement, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be gone into by the Trial Court and after appreciation of evidence in a full-fledged trial, and thereafter the decision regarding innocence or otherwise of the accused can be arrived at and it would not be proper for this Court to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. to appreciate the factual matrix of the case and the evidence on record. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
6. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall independently consider the material on record and arrive at a conclusion and shall not be influenced by any of the observations made herein above.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR