IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6505/2016 BETWEEN 1. SRI S K RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O S.L.KRISHNAPPA, 2. SMT. S.T.VANISREE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O. SRI. S.K.RAGHAVENDRA BOTH RESIDING AT SIDDARAMA EXTENSION, KASHIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VINOBHA NAGAR POLICE, SHIVAMOGGA, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. K.RAJASHEKARA S/O K.T.KRISHNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL, SHIVAPPANAIK EXTENSION, 60 FEET ROAD, (NEAR PRIYADHARSHINI SCHOOL) KASHIPURA, VINOBHANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP II FOR R1, SRI C.L.DEVANANDA, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR. NO.219/2015 REGISTERED BY THE VINOBHANAGAR POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA UNDER SECTION 5,38 AND 39 OF THE KARNATAKA MONEY LENDERS ACT, 1961 AGAINST THE PETRS. PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. C.J. (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioners have sought to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.219/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 38 and 39 of Karnataka Moneylenders Act, 1961.
3. The only contention urged by the petitioners is that the registration of the FIR and consequent investigation by the respondent-Police is in violation of Section 15 of the Karnataka Moneylenders Act, which reads as under:
“15. Power of authorized officer to require production of records or documents and power of entry, inspection and seizure— (1) The Registrar, Assistant Registrar or any Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf may, for the purpose of verifying whether the business of money-lending is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act, enter the premises of the money lender or any person who in his opinion is carrying on the business of money-lending and call upon him to produce any record or document relating to such business and every such money lender or person shall allow such inspection and produce such record or document.
(2) The Registrar, Assistant Registrar or the Other Officer referred to in sub-section (1) may, for the purposes of the said sub-section, search the premises and seize any record and document as may be necessary. The record or document seized shall be retained only for such period as may be necessary for the purpose of examination, prosecution or other legal action.
Provided that the provisions of Sections 100 and 102 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) shall, so far as may be, applied to such search and seizure.
Provided further that for every record or document seized, appropriate acknowledgement shall be given to the person from whose custody it is seized.
(3) The Registrar, Assistant Registrar or the other officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall also have power to summon and examine the money lender or any person who in his opinion is in a position to furnish relevant information.”
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader does not dispute the submission insofar as powers of the Police Officer to register the case in respect of the offence under the provisions of Karnataka Moneylenders Act and the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act is concerned. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.101569/2016 and connected matters between Shrimant S/o Jinnappa Khangond vs. State of Karnataka wherein after analyzing the scope and ambit of the powers of Police Officer to investigate into the alleged offences, in the light of Section 15 of the Karnataka Moneylenders Act, this Court has taken a view that the Police Officer has no jurisdiction to register FIR and consequently the FIR registered by the Police has been set aside.
5. In view of the above, petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the same is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.219/2015 presently pending on the file of II Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Shivamogga are quashed.
6. However, liberty is reserved to the competent authority to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged violations in accordance with the provisions of the above Act/s.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR