IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6365 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Mallikarjuna, S/o Durgappa Badegear, Aged about 26 years, Assistant Lineman, BESCOM Urban Office, Chintamani-563125. …Petitioner (Sri. Amaresh A Angadi, Advocate) AND 1. State of Karnataka, By its Police, Chintamani Town Police Station, Chintamani-563125 Chikkaballapur District.
2. Sri. Anil Kumar, S/o Thippanna Sirur, Aged about 25 years, Resident of Marunala Village, Taluk & District Bagalkote-587101. …Respondents (Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP for R1) This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the impugned FIR No.147/2019 dated: 25.06.2019 registered under Section 420 of IPC by the 1st respondent Chintamani Town Police, Chintamani, and same has been forwarded to Hon’ble Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani Chickballapur Vide Annexure A.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R In the instant petition petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i) Set aside the impugned FIR No.0147/2019 dated 25.06.2019 registered under Section 420 of IPC by the 1st respondent – Chintamani Town Police, Chintamani and same has been forwarded to the Hon’ble Court of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, Chickballapur vide annexure-A at page 14 and (ii) to pass such other order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the petitioner’s case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The petitioner is alleged to have taken a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in getting job to the complainant. In not getting the job to the complainant, complainant has registered a complaint for the offences punishable under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the initiation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner has presented this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in identical matter in the case of Vinod C.Nayak, this Court has granted an interim order. Thus petitioner has made out prima-facie case to grant interim relief.
4. It is to be noted that in the complaint itself it is stated that transaction is between the complainant and the petitioner, whereas the petitioner has stated that amount has been given to one Sri Vinod C.Nayak. In other words, there is no allegation by the complainant against Vinod C.Nayak.
5. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in the case of R.PARIMALA BAI vs. BHASKAR NARASIMHAIAH passed in Crl.P.No.1387/2011 decided on 06.07.2018 stating that illegal transaction cannot be taken note of for the purpose of initiating proceedings.
6. Perused the decision in the case of R.PARIMALA BAI (supra). It is a case relating to offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, whereas, in the present case, the matter relates to offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
7. Having regard to the allegation that petitioner promised to get job to the complainant and alleged to have accepted a sum of Rs.10,00,000./- would amount to cheating. Therefore, offences are triable. Consequently, petitioner has not made out case.
Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE cm/-