Karnataka High Court
Sri N S Nagaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2285 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI N.S.NAGARAJ
S/O N.S.SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.1184/B
KUVEMPU PARK
D-GROUP LAYOUT
MUDDANAPALYA MAIN ROAD
BENGLAURU - 560 091.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 091
REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
HIGH COURT KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
2
IN CR.NO.215/2020 REGISTERED BY THE ANNAPOORNESHWARI
NAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
C.C.NO.9450/2021 ON THE FILE OF V ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 170 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 proceedings in C.C.No.9450 of 2021 pending before the 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore arising out of Crime No.215 of 2020 registered for offences under Sections 419, 420 and 170 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri P.Rudrappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
It is the case of the prosecution as discerned from the investigation that one Sharanabasava assured the complainant's 3 brother that he would get him a job if he pays him Rs.95,000/- for the said purpose. It is the allegation that the said Sharanabasava did not get him a job and did not return the money. The complainant visited the shop of the petitioner at which point in time the petitioner informed the complainant that he is having an office by name National Crime Investigation Bureau and assured that he will get the money back and demanded payment of Rs.5,000/- which was paid by the complainant through phone pe. Thinking that the unit of the petitioner was attached to the CCB police, the complainant went near the office of the petitioner and enquired about the petitioner, at which point in time, the complainant comes to know that it is only a Board that is said to have been installed and the petitioner was a fraud. Based upon this incident the crime is registered against the petitioner and the police after investigation have also filed a charge sheet.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been appointed as Zonal Director 4 of National Crime Investigation Bureau but without salary, it is an honorary job and according to him, it is the organization that is registered in a Taluk of Uttara Pradesh and the said organization is working against corruption, smuggling, fake currency and bonded labour. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner entered into such transaction only to save the complainant and not to defraud.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader refutes the contentions and urges that this is a fit case where parties have to face trial.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
7. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has induced the complainant to part with certain amount. The inducement is clearly made out in the complaint and in the charge sheet that is filed by the police after investigation. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 419 and 5 420 of the IPC. The larger question of formation of National Crime Investigation Bureau or the petitioner getting himself appointed in the organization and the registration of the office in some place in Uttara Pradesh need not be gone into at this stage, as it is a matter of trial and the petitioner has to come out clean. Prima facie, a case is made out against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 419 or Section 420 of the IPC as the inducement from the beginning was on a dishonest intention.
8. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ