IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.721 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
Sri. K.R. Nagaraj, S/o. K. Revanasiddappa, Aged about 54 years, Shop No.1 and 2, Davanagere Club Complex, Pravasimandir Road, Davanagere – 577 002. …Petitioner (By Smt. Pramila Nesargi, Senior Counsel for Sri. Muniswamy Gowda S.G., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Extension Police Station, Davanagere – 577 002.
2. Sri. S.S. Ranjit Kumar, S/o. S.R. Sree Ramuloo, Aged about 38 years, District Manager, Bata India Ltd., Hubli – 580 021. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R1; Sri. Zameer Pasha, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1986/2014 on the file of the JMFC-I Court at Davanagere.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant.
2. The petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1986/2014 pending on the file of the JMFC (I Court), Davanagere, for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 404, 405 and 406 of IPC.
3. The petitioner herein was appointed as an agent of the complainant-M/s. Bata India Ltd., in terms of the agreement dated 09.11.1997. As per the terms of the said agreement, all stocks, sale proceeds and other materials were to remain exclusive properties of the company and the agent namely petitioner herein shall have no right to deduct any amount of the sale proceeds except his commission and was also not entitled to retain the sale proceeds in his hands for any reason whatsoever.
4. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that he dishonestly and intentionally misappropriated the funds of the company for his own use and in contravention of the terms of the agreement, misappropriated the funds of the company to the tune of Rs.20,56,825.17/-.
5. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Upon investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a ‘B’ report mainly on the ground that the complainant failed to co-operate in the investigation and failed to produce documents to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioner and jurisdiction for prosecution of the petitioner was within the limits of the courts in Calcutta.
6. The respondent filed a protest petition and examined himself in support thereof and also examined one witness and produced supporting documents in proof of the charges leveled against the petitioner. Considering the same, by order dated 20.02.2014, the learned Magistrate allowed the protest petition and took cognizance of the above offences and directed summons to the petitioner.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. Learned Magistrate has failed to consider the material on record before issuing summons to the petitioner. In the ‘B’ report it was stated that no material was produced by the complainant. In the absence of any supporting material, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the alleged offences and further, the jurisdiction for trial of the above offences in terms of the above agreement was within limits of the courts at Calcutta. The learned Magistrate therefore has gravely erred in taking cognizance of the alleged offences.
8. Refuting the submission, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner were substantiated by the statement of the complainant and the witness examined on his behalf. The necessary documents were also produced before the Court. On considering the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the alleged offences and therefore, there is no error or illegality, whatsoever either in the order of taking cognizance or in issuing summons to the petitioner.
9. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
10. At the stage of issuance of summons, the learned Magistrate is required to consider only the averments made in the complaint and the supporting material produced in proof thereof. The records indicate that on submission of the ‘B’ report, notice was issued to the complainant and he submitted his protest petition and opportunity was given to the respondent to substantiate the allegations made in his sworn statement and he examined a witness and produced necessary documents. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has observed as under:
“ORDERS ON PROTEST PETITION The complainant has made the instant petition seeking to rejection of the “B” report as the investigation had not been done in accordance with law. Further, prayed to take cognizance for the offences alleged and register a criminal case against the accused for the offences alleged U/Secs.403, 404, 405 and 406 of IPC.
Heard and perused the protest petition, complaint, sworn statement of the complainant, documents and police papers. On perusal, it reveals that the concerned police had not investigated the matter properly, and prima- facie there are grounds to proceed against the accused for the offences alleged. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Protest petition is allowed. Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable U/Secs.403, 404, 405 and 406 of IPC.
Office to register a criminal case against the accused herein and issue summons to accused r/by 24-05-2014.”
This order, in my view, is in conformity with the judicial requirement for taking cognizance of the offences. The learned Magistrate has not only considered the sworn statement but also the documents produced by the complainant. The agreement produced by the petitioner and the allegations made against the petitioner, in my view are sufficient to make out the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. At the stage of issuing process Magistrate is required to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceedings in the matter. Such satisfaction is reflected in the above order. Therefore, I do not find any error or infirmity whatsoever in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
SV/-
Sd/- JUDGE