Karnataka High Court
Divakar Awasthi vs State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2016
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5220 OF 2013
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5966 OF 2013
CRL.P.NO.5220 OF 2013:
BETWEEN:-
DIVAKAR AWASTHI
S/O LATE SURENDRA AWASTHI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
EMPLOYEE, PACL LIMITED
NO.22, 3RD FLOOR, AMBER TOWER
SANSAR CHAND ROAD
JAIPUR - 302 004.
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
NO.30/1, 5TH FLOOR
LEEHMAN'S COMPLEX
CUNNINGHUM ROAD
BANGALORE - 52.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: ZULFIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADV.,)
AND:-
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
RAJAGOPAL NAGAR POLICE STATION
2
NOW BEING INVESTIGATED BY
CITY CRIME BRANCH
BANGALORE.
2. SRI. SHIV KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SRI. AMALAPPA
R/O HOUSE NO.373
SECOND CROSS
IST MAIN ROAD
LAXMIDEVI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 096.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: K.R. KESHAVAMURTHY SPP-II FOR R1
SRI: ASHWIN VAISH, ADV., FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANT)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH FIR BEARING CRIME No.291/2013
REGISTERED WITH POLICE STATION RAJAGOPALNAGAR
P.S., BANGALORE CITY, UNDER SECTION 420 AND 506 OF
IPC.
CRL. PETITION No.5966 OF 2013:-
BETWEEN:-
SUKHDEV SINGH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O SRI. RAGHUBIR SINGH
UPO, JHALIANK ALAM
DIST ROPAR, PUNJAB.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: ZULFIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADV.,)
3
AND:-
1. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O SRI. AAMALAPPA
NO.373, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN
LAXMI DEVINAGARA
BANGALORE CITY - 560 096.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAJAGOPALANAGARA POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE CITY - 98.
3. STATE BY KARNATAKA BY
CCB (F & M) POLICE
N.T. PET, BANGALORE - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: K.R. KESHAVAMURTHY SPP-II FOR R2 & R3)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.291/13 OF
RAJAGOPALANAGAR P.S., BANGALORE CITY, (BEING
INVESTIGATED BY CCB, BANGALORE).
THESE CRL. PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS
DAY, PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P..C. to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Cr.No.291/2013 of Rajagopalanagara police station in 4 Bangalore City pending on the file of I ACMM and VII ACMM Court, Bangalore-2.
2. The brief facts which gave rise to these petitions are as under:-
M/s. PACL Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act on 1.6.1913. The second respondent complainant in Crl.P.No.5220/2013 and first respondent in Crl.P.No.5966/2013 viz., Shivakumar was interested in investing his hard earned money when some personnel of the company came to his house on 1.6.2013 in order to convince the complainant to invest money. Upon going through the prospectus, the complainant was greatly impressed as it suggested that M/s.PACL Limited is working in close connection with SBI, Govt. of India and Senior Politicians. The personnel further represented to the complainant that N.S. Bango is the Chairman and Managing Director of the said company, who has received many awards and the reputation of the company is impeccable. It is also backed by Prime Minister of India. Based on the said representation, 5 respondent-complainant invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the company. On 7.6.2013, a receipt was handed over to him in proof of receipt of payment. Feeling happy with investment made by him, the complainant discussed the matter with his friends to check about the PACL company on the internet and also made general enquiry. Thereafter, he came to know that he was misled by misrepresentation. As such, he demanded his money back. But he was threatened and sent away by the personnel acting on behalf of the Company. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before Rajagopalanagara police station, which came to be registered in Cr.No.291/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 420 IPC on 1.6.2013. To quash the complaint, these petitions are filed by the petitioners-the representative of the company on the ground that the petitioners are in no way concerned to the company, they neither misrepresented nor received the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant.
3. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners filed a copy of compromise dated 16.4.2013 said to have been 6 signed by the complainant Shivakumar and one Mr. Prasad S. S/o.S.N. Swamy -a Authorised Signatory of the company whereunder an amount of Rs.50,000/- said to have been refunded to the complainant/respondent No.2 and therefore the petitioners prays to quash the prosecution initiated against them by the complainant.
4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri. Keshava Murthy for respondent State opposed for quashing the proceedings. In the mean-while, one Jagadish. N, S/o. Nanjappa of Nandini Layout, Bangalore filed an application- I.A.1/15 to implead him as one of the respondents contending that like the complainant-respondent, he has also been cheated and duped by the company. The said application has been opposed by the petitioners.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has submitted that the company has received deposits from thousand of persons all over the country and this a big scam, the investigation is in progress. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has 7 filed a status report dated 14.3.2016 as to the status of the investigation in the aforesaid crime. From the status report, it is evident that the scam is of greater magnitude spread all over the country. The investigating agency is making best efforts to complete the investigation and to file a final report. The learned Prosecutor also filed a letter dated 20.11.2015 issued by IDBI bank which reveals that the DD for Rs.50,000/- annexed to compromise deed dated 16.4.2013 was not encashed even after two years, moreover, the complainant-respondent is not coming before the Court. Moreover the counsel for respondent-complainant No.2 in Crl.P.No.5220/2013 filed a retirement memo. With this background, I am not inclined to give evidentiary value to the so-called compromise deed produced by the petitioners. Be that as it may, even if the amount of Rs.50,000/- received by the complainant presumed to have been paid back to the complainant, that will not preclude the investigating agency from proceeding further with the investigation and to file a final report, that too, when an application for impleading is filed by another victim by name Jagadish N. Number of 8 documents have been produced to show that petitioner company and their representatives have duped thousands of innocent poor persons who invested their money with a fond hope of getting better returns. Under such circumstances, quashing of the FIR would amount to abuse of process of the Court. As such, the petitions are dismissed. However, the investigating agency is directed to complete the investigation expeditiously and to file a final report and to take effective steps to see that the real culprits should not leave the country to wriggle out of this scam. In view of disposal of the main matters, I.A.1/16 for stay filed in Crl.P.No.5220/2013 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-