IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3353 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI P.R.BALAJI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O.P.V.RADHAKRISHNA GUPTA EX-PARTNER OF M/S.BALAJI AGARBATHI COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KAGGALIPURA COLONY KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 082 2. SRI P.R.BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O.LATE P.V.RADHAKRISHNA GUPTA PARTNER OF M/S.BALAJI AGARBATHI COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KAGGALIPURA COLONY KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 082 3. SMT.P.R.NAGAVENI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O.LATE P.V.RADHAKRISHNA GUPTA EX-PARTNER OF M/S.BALAJI AGARBATHI COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KAGGALIPURA COLONY KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 082 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.C.AVINASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAGGALIPURA POLICE KAGGALIPURA BANGALORE REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001 2. SRI N.SRIRAM REDDY ADVOCATE, NO.8/38 RITUAL PARK APARTMENT ARMUGAM CIRCLE BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI M.SRIRAM REDDY-R2-PARTY IN PERSON) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 298 OF THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1993 READ WITH SECTION 420 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN PCR NO.189/2016.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.2-party-in-person and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
2. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate seeking action against petitioners herein for running an industry without proper licence under Sections 64 and 66 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act’ for short) which is punishable under Section 298 of the Act. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation. The Police registered the FIR in Crime No.156/2016 under Section 298 of the Act read with Section 420 of IPC.
3. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC, therefore registration of FIR under Section 420 of IPC is mala fide and mischievous. The other offences alleged against petitioners under Section 298 of the Act is punishable with only fine and therefore, the said offence is a non- cognizable. Apparently to get over the legal hurdle, the offence under Section 420 of IPC has been incorporated with mala fide intention and further, he submitted that petitioners have been operating the industry with proper licence. The same has been renewed on 07.04.2016. Hence, there is no basis for the prosecution of petitioners under Section 298 of the Act either.
4. Respondent No.2-party-in-person, however, has drawn my attention to the order passed by this Court in WP.No.12151/2016 dated 28.03.2016 and emphasized that there being clear observation by this Court that the petitioners have been carrying on the industry without proper licence, the matter warrants investigation and thus seeks to dismiss the petition.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 also argued in line with respondent No.2 and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have gone through the private complaint filed by the second respondent. I do not find anything therein attracting ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The averments made in the complaint relate to the alleged violation of provisions of the Act. Except contending that the petitioners have been running the industry without obtaining licence under Section 64 of the Act, there are no allegations whatsoever to show that the said act was done with an intention to cheat or defraud the Government or any other persons. Even the order passed by the learned Magistrate indicates that the complaint was referred to the Police to investigate into the alleged offence under Section 298 of the Act and not under Section 420 of IPC. Under the said circumstances, there was absolutely no basis for the respondent-Police to register the FIR under Section 420 of IPC. The averments made in the complaint even if it is accepted in its entirety do not attract the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. As a result, the FIR for the said offence is liable to be quashed.
7. Insofar as the offence under Section 298 of the Act is concerned, the petitioners are placing reliance on the document which is stated to be the renewal licence issued by the competent authority under the Act.
The said document is disputed by respondent No.2-party-in-person. The genuineness of the said document cannot be gone into by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Since the learned Magistrate has directed the Police to investigate into the matter, the Investigating Officer shall examine the authenticity and veracity of the document and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The FIR registered against the petitioners under Section 420 of IPC stands quashed.
The investigation shall continue insofar as the offence under Section 298 read with Sections 64 and 66 of the Act.
Sd/- JUDGE LB