IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.960/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI. N.M. PADIYAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O. N.P. PADIYAR R/AT. FLAT NO.16 CANARA BANK SOUTH END APARTMENTS SOUTH END ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BAGALORE-560 004. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BASAVANAGUDI POLICE REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 009.
2. MOHAN S. MALAGI S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. NO.11, SHANKAR 6TH B CROSS ROAD GURUDHARSHANA LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE-560 097. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH CRIME NO.181/2013 OF BASAVANAGUDI P.S., BANGALORE ON THE FILE OF II A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has sought to quash the FIR in Crime No.181/2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471, 472, 473, 323 and 506(B) read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent is absent. Perused the FIR and the documents filed along with the petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that false and baseless allegations are made against the petitioner. The complainant has not produced any material to substantiate receipt of money by the petitioner and therefore, the said allegations do not constitute any of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Hence, the prosecution of the petitioner is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
4. On perusal of the complaint and FIR, it is noticed that the allegation against the petitioner is that on the promise of getting a BDA site, the petitioner herein collected a sum of Rs.34,99,000/-. The date of receipt of the said amount is also specified stating that on 27.5.2011 a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and on 11.6.2011 another sum of Rs.6,00,00/- was paid into the account of K.J. Dhananjay Kumar and thus, it is alleged that a total sum of Rs.34,99,000/- was collected by the petitioners. It is further stated in the complaint that when the complainant sought for return of the money, the petitioners and other accused persons threatened the complainant and also assaulted him. These allegations on the face of it attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner and requires to be investigated.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has not produced any material to substantiate the charge cannot be considered at this stage. Necessary material in support of the charges would be collected only in the course of investigation. The very allegations made in the complaint disclose that the complainant is possessed of clear documents in proof of the payment of money. In the wake of these allegations, the investigation cannot be stalled. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the proceedings.
6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
7. Since the investigation was stayed by the orders of this Court, the Investigating Officer is directed to expedite the investigation and complete the same within an outer limit of three months from today and submit the final report in accordance with law.
8. In view of this order, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.