IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.49709/2019 (GM – RES) BETWEEN:
1. M/s.Yellow Express Logistics Ltd. Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluqa Bengaluru Rural District-562123 Rep. by Sri Joju Thomas (Managing Director).
2. M/s. Yellow Express Logistics Ltd. Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluqa Bengaluru Rural District-562123 Rep. by its Directors. … Petitioners (By Sri K B Monesh Kumar for Smt.Vijetha R Naik, Advocates) AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Jilladalitha Bhavana, Beerasandra Village Kundana Hobli, Devenahalli Taluqa – 562 110.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Doddaballapura Sub-Division Doddaballapura.
3. The Station House Officer Nelamangala Town Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District – 562123. . ... Respondents (By Sri Vinayaka V S, HCGP) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.PC praying to quash the complaint dated 23.9.2019 produced as Annexure-L lodged by the R1 before the R3 and quash the FIR in Crime No.0143/2019 dated 25.9.2019 produced as Annexure-M pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala and all further proceedings thereunto.
This petition is coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the complaint dated 23.09.2019 produced as Annexure-L lodged by the I Respondent before the III Respondent.
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the FIR in Crime Number 0143/2019 dated 25.09.2019 produced as Annexure-M pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala and all further proceedings thereunto;
c) Issue such other directions/orders considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Perusal of Annexure-L dated 23.9.2019, Deputy Commissioner has sought investigation in respect of petitioners’ business on the allegations that there were certain discrepancies in the business like money transactions. Those allegations are as under:
“¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀĪÀAvÉ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ 5 ««zsÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼À°è PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ EzÀÄÝ ®¨sÀå zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 ¸Á«gÀ dªÀiÁ SÁvÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 200 µÉÃgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ ¥Àæw dªÀiÁ SÁvÉUÉ gÀÆ.2,00,000/- jAzÀ gÀÆ 2,50,000/- UÀ¼À ªÀgÉUÉ ºÀt dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. »ÃUÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ºÀt¢AzÀ ¥ÀÛw SÁvÉzÁgÀjUÉ 1 PÁgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹ CªÀjUÉ gÀÆ.27,000/-UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ¹PÀªÁV dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrz ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À SÁvÉUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÉÆÃAzÀt PÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. »ÃUÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ 63 d£ÀjUÉ PÁgÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÁgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß “G§gï” PÀA¥À¤UÉ M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2,000 SÁvÉUÀ½UÉ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ PÉêÀ® 63 d£ÀjUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß «vÀj¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 100 PÁgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹gÀĪÀ PÁgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ PÉÆæÃrüPÀj¹zÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß §¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀÄvÀæzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj PÁgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤°è¸À®Ä ¤¯ÁÝtPÉÌ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ gÀÆ.6,50,000/- ®PÀëzÀ ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀt ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ gÀÆ.6,50,000/- ®PÀë ¨ÁrUÉ ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ C®èzÉà ºÀt dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ gÀÆ.10,000/-UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ¢AzÀ¯Éà «vÀj¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆæÃrüPÀj¹ PÉêÀ® 63 ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁrUÉUÉ ¤Ãr 2000 PÁgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ gÀÆ.10,000/-UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ®¨sÀzÀ «ZÁgÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀjPÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è FUÁUÀ¯Éà Reserve Bank of India gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ°è £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂAiÀiÁUÀzÀ PÀA¥À¤UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ oÉêÀtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆæÃrüPÀj¸À®Ä CºÀðjgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤UÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ/ªÀ»ªÁlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤UÀ¼À J¯Áè ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ vÀ¤SÁ vÀAqÀPÉÌ ªÀ»¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁj, zÉÆqÀا¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ F §UÉÎ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃj G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁj, zÉÆqÀا¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹ vÀªÀÄUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÉ.”
3. Matter is at the stage of investigation.
Therefore, no interference is called for. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 847 held as under:
“9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.”
4. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is crystal clear that it is premature to entertain the petitioners’ grievance.
Accordingly, petition stands dismissed .
bkm Sd/- JUDGE