IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1019/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA S/O LATE NINGAPPA C.M AGED ABOUT 66 YEASR R/AT OLD POST OFFICE ROAD CHANANRAYAPATNA TOWN CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. DILLI RAJAN., ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SRI. SUBBA REDDY K.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLCIE CHANNARAYAPTTANA TOWN POLICE STATION CHANNARAYAPATTANA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE – 560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT, FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.213/2015 AND THE CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATTANA IN C.C.NO.960/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE A TO C AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO VIDE ANNEXURE A TO C.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners are before this Court for quashing of proceedings pending in C.C.No.960/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 (for short ‘Act’).
2. Channarayapatna police on receiving credible information on 11.07.2015 and having obtained warrant from Deputy Superintendent of Police under Section 81(2) of the Karnataka Police Act, searched residential premises of the petitioner and arrested petitioner apart from seizing certain materials. Panchanama came to be drawn at the spot as per Annexure-D between 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 11.07.2015. FIR in crime No.213/2015 came to be registered by Channarayapatna police at 8.15 p.m. on 11.07.2015. Subsequent to completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act and Section 420 IPC. Hence, petitioner has sought for quashing of said proceedings.
3. It is the contention of Sri N Dilli Rajan, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that offences alleged against petitioner being cognizable offence, as per dicta laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI vs GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 when jurisdictional police receive credible information with regard to a cognizable offence, ought to have noted down the same in general diary/station house diary before proceeding to such investigation and registration of FIR and this exercise has not been undertaken by the first respondent – police which is contrary to Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. as well as dicta laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, he has sought for quashing of said proceedings. He would rely upon judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101394/2014 and Crl.P.No.100590/2017.
4. Per contra, Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP would defend the proceedings initiated against petitioner and prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the case papers, it would disclose that on 11.05.2017, first respondent on the strength of credible information received, is said to have proceeded to the residential premises of the petitioner after obtaining search warrant from the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police and entered the premises of the petitioner and found on verification of the records that petitioner is doing money lending business without licence and charging exorbitant interest on borrowings and was intimidating the borrowers to pay higher rate of interest. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while examining similar plea has held it is only authorized officers who are empowered to enter the premises, to inspect and seize the documents as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act. The authorized officers prescribed under the Act are Registrar and Assistant Registrar or such other person authorized by the State Government in that behalf. In the absence of any material to show that police officer who entered the business/residential premises of the petitioner were authorized by the State Government, it cannot be said that persons, who had entered the premises, were authorized or in other words, such inspection can be held as having been conducted by authorized persons. In the instant case, police officers have entered the premises of the petitioner and entry of the said officers to the residential premises of the petitioner is not accordance with the mandate of Section 15 of the Act. Thus, proceedings initiated against petitioner would be illegal.
6. In this petition, respondent has invoked Sections 3 & 4 of the Act which offences are cognizable offence. When that is so, jurisdictional police on receipt of credible information of commission of a cognizable offence, ought to have entered the same in the general diary or station house diary and thereafter registered the FIR before proceeding to investigate the matter. Even according to the prosecution, panchas were secured on 11.07.2015 and along with panchas, police officers of first respondent had entered the residential premises of the petitioner and had seized the documents. Credible information was received at 6.00 p.m. Panchanama was drawn between 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. and FIR has been registered at 8.15 p.m., which is contrary to the mandatory requirement of Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. There is no material on record to establish that police have entered the information in the case diary prior for search being conducted. Following the order dated 22.06.2017 passed in Crl.P.No. 101569/2016 & connected matters, this Court in Crl.P.No.10038/2017 disposed of on 16.04.2018 had quashed proceedings against petitioners herein on identical grounds by opining as under:
7. In the instant case also, there has been no such complaint to the jurisdictional Court by the borrowers alleging that petitioner had charged exorbitant interest as stated in the complaint. Thus, initiation of the prosecution against the petitioner on the basis of Police report is illegal. Records would clearly disclose that registration of the complaint by respondent No.2 is without taking recourse Section 5 of the Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004, and such further proceedings would be illegal.
7. In the case on hand, it can be noticed that there was no complaint by any person alleging that petitioner had charged exorbitant interest; initiation of prosecution against petitioner on the basis of a police report is illegal, as it is contrary to Section 15 of the Act; registration of complaint by first respondent is without taking recourse to Section 5 of the Act and as such, all further proceedings if allowed to continue, it would not end in conviction and it would result in waste of precious judicial time and calling upon the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial would definitely be abuse of process of law.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioner in C.C.No.960/2016 (Crime No.213/2015) on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Channarayapatna for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 is quashed. Petitioner is acquitted of the aforesaid offences.
SD/- JUDGE *sp