Karnataka High Court
Eugene Prabhu B vs The State By Sanjaynagar P S on 31 March, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8079 OF 2020
BETWEEN
EUGENE PRABHU B
S/O CAPTAIN JAMES,
AGEDA BOUT 44 YEARS,
R/A NO.84, 1ST FLOOR,
KSFC LAYOUT, LINGARAJAPRUAM,
ST.THOMAS TOWN POST,
BENGALURU - 560 084 ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. VIVEK N., ADV.]
AND
1. THE STATE BY SANJAYNAGAR P. S
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. K. R. CHANDRASHEKAR
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
SANJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION,
SANJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 094
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. YASHODA K.P., HCGP]
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET
WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.1521/2020
BEFORE THE VIII A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU CITY
REGISTERED BY THE SANJAY NAGAR P.S., FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.1521/2020, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner is accused No.3 and claims to be a practicing advocate.
2. Heard Sri.Vivek N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashoda, learned HCGP for the respondents.
3. The brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:
On 13.10.2016, the Police claimed to have received a credible information that some persons who 3 are in possession of Turkish Lira - currency of the Turkey, and were wanting to sell the same for a higher price. The jeep in which those accused were traveling was intercepted and the notes were seized. The accused were taken to the Police station. It transpires that the present petitioner also goes to the Police station from whom about 10 notes of Turkish Lira is recovered. Based upon the said recovery, a crime came to be registered against the accused one of whom was the petitioner in Crime No.231/2016, for offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners. It is at that juncture, the petitioner knocks the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that he is an advocate and 4 unnecessarily dragged into these proceedings, without their being any offence that can be alleged against him. Section 420 of IPC cannot be alleged, as he has not cheated any person or induced any person with a dishonest intention for any action.
4.1. The learned counsel would submit that the other accused who may deal or have dealt with such instances is not his concern. Therefore, Section 511 of IPC, which is also invoked in the case at hand against the petitioner also cannot be laid, as he has not committed any offence that would become punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.
4.2. The learned counsel would further submit that what was recovered from the possession of the petitioner was only of the value of 50 rupees in exchange to the Turkish Lira. He would place on record the exchange rates then and now as also the value of the currency then and now.
5
5. The learned HCGP would refute the submission and contend that the notes were recovered from the petitioner and therefore, the offence is made out. If it is not Section 420 of IPC, at least Section 511 of IPC is against the petitioner and it is a matter of trial that the petitioner has to come out clean.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The possession of the notes with petitioner is the bone of contention in the entire episode of crime. What is seized from the hands of the petitioner is 10 notes of Turkish Lira. The notes which depicts that they were each of Rs.5,00,000/- denomination in Lira. Even according to the complaint, the notes had lost its value in the year 2005, as they were demonetized in the year 2005 by the Turkish Government. The proof of that is 6 also produced as a communication of Link Money Changes, a foreign exchange company, which confirms that Turkish Lira that was recovered from the petitioner had no market value. The communication reads as follows:
"To.
Sub/Inspector, Sanjay Nagar Police Station Bangalore Subject: Seeking Opinion about Turkey Currency Respected Sir/Madam, With reference to about subject, we had received a letter from your office. The currency notes of Turkey which you had mentioned is genuine. But, the Turkey Lira was replaced in the year, 2005 with new Turkey Lira. The currencies which you had seized have "no market value" as on date. We hereby, encloses our licence copy issued by RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. This is for your information.
Thanking you."7
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also placed on record the currency converter of the age and today. At that age, one Turkish Lira was equal to 10 lakhs of the old Turkish Lira. The notes that are recovered are of Rs.5 lakhs. The present value of one Turkish Lira is 5 rupees 15 paisa, in exchange to rupees. Therefore, what was found with the petitioner was totally about 50 Indian rupees, even as on that date in terms of what is seen in the conversion. Be that as it may.
9. The petitioner cannot be alleged of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Section 420 requires the ingredients under Section 415 of IPC to be proved. The ingredients of Section 415 of IPC is that the accused should have induced the victim with dishonest intention to part with the property. The possession of demonetized notes, which were demonetized 14 years prior to it being recovered from the petitioner cannot mean that he was holding them to commit the offence of 8 cheating. A suspicion of this nature cannot give rise to cheating.
10. The other offence that is alleged is Section 511 of IPC. Section 511 of IPC deals with punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment. The complaint or the narration in the charge sheet against the petitioner would not mean that the petitioner has indulged in commission of any crime that would become offence punishable for life imprisonment or any other imprisonment, for that to be pressed into service, Section 420 is required to be proved. If Section 420 of IPC itself cannot be laid against the petitioner, there can hardly be any circumstance of Section 511 of IPC to be laid against the petitioner. In the teeth of the preceding observation, if further proceedings are permitted to continue against the petitioner, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
9
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The charge sheet in C.C.No.1521/2020 pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stands quashed.
The observations made in the course of this order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the same shall not bind or influence any further proceedings pending against any other accused.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG