Karnataka High Court
Shankarlal Choudhary vs The State Of Karnataka By on 22 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42446
CRL.P No. 4630 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4630 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SHANKARLAL CHOUDHARY
S/O LATE MANARAM CHOUDHARY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BUSINESS AT: M/S RISHABH
INTERNATIONAL, NO.1094/13
GROUND FLOOR, SPA PLAZA
OTC ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOPAL SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
NANDINI B G
Location:
BY J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION
high court of BENGALURU - 560 078.
karnataka
2. M/S SYSTECH SERVICES LTD.,
NO.03, 23RD MAIN, J.P. NAGAR
2ND PHASE, MARENAHALLI.
BANGALORE - 560 078,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
MR. ANIL KUMAR N.B.
3. POWER HORSE ENTERPRISES
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MOHAMMED ELAHI
NO.356/26, 6TH MAIN
WILSON GARDEN
LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 030.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. S.P.P. FOR R1
SRI. S.D.N. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. NARAYAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42446
CRL.P No. 4630 of 2021
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2019 IN
CR.NO.13/2019 PASSED BY THE XLVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AS
PER DOCUMENT NO.1; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2021 IN
CRL.RP.NO.335/2019 PASSED BY LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-65) AS PER DOCUMENT NO.2.
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner being accused No.3 is impugning the common order dated 25.03.2019 passed in Cr.No.13 of 2019 on the file of the learned 44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, allowing the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. by respondent No.2 - M/s Systech Services Ltd., and respondent No.3 - Power Horse Enterprises, while rejecting the similar application filed by the petitioner herein and also impugning the order dated 18.03.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.335 of 2019 on the file of the learned LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-65), which confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.
2. Respondent No.2 - M/s Systech Services Ltd., filed the complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission -3- NC: 2024:KHC:42446 CRL.P No. 4630 of 2021 of offence punishable under Sections 468, 471, 472, 120B and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is contended that accused Nos.1 and 2 have placed orders for supply of 350 laptops. Accordingly, the complainant supplied laptops in their favour. In spite of that, accused No.1 being the Purchase Manager and accused No.2 being the Accounts Head have not made any payment, even though invoice No.SMB 18191565 dated 09.01.2019 was raised for a sum of Rs.46,59,230/- in relation to 149 units of laptops and also for remaining 201 units, separate invoice No.SMB 18191598 dated 16.01.2019 was raised for Rs.63,85,270/-. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have promised to make payment within 30 days from the date of delivery of laptops. Thus, a sum of Rs.1,09,44,500/- was due. Initially, the cheque was issued and later it was replaced by another cheque dated 18.01.2019, but none of the cheques were honored and the payment was never made by M/s Regus India or by accused Nos.1 and 2. It is the contention of the complainant that M/s Regus India, is a fictitious Company and they have committed the offences as stated above. It is the further contention of the complainant that the laptops were purchased by accused No.3 from accused Nos.1 and 2 and a -4- NC: 2024:KHC:42446 CRL.P No. 4630 of 2021 criminal case was registered against the accused. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recovered 52 laptops from the custody of accused No.3 under the mahazar PF No.12(a) of 2019.
3. Similarly, respondent No.3 - M/s Power Horse Enterprises, represented by Mr.Mohammed Elahi, Proprietor has filed complaint against accused No.1 and the petitioner herein in Cr.No.19 of 2019 of Adugodi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC. It is alleged that M/s Regus India through accused No.1 placed order for 1500 UPS for total consideration of Rs.41,89,500/-. After delivery of UPS, accused No.1 has not made any payment. It is the further contention of the complainant that the UPS were purchased by accused No.3 herein from accused No.1 and a criminal case was registered against accused No.1 and the petitioner herein. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recovered 1030 UPS from the custody of petitioner herein under the mahazar PF Nos.11 and 11(a) of 2019.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:42446 CRL.P No. 4630 of 2021
4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are the suppliers of 52 laptops and 1030 UPS have filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the same. At the same time, the petitioner has also filed similar application for release of laptops and UPS in his possession contending that he had purchased it for a valuable consideration from M/s Regus India, who in turn, purchased it from M/s Systech Services Ltd., and M/s Power Horse Enterprises, respectively. Since the laptops and UPS were seized from the custody of the petitioner herein, he is entitled for the interim custody.
5. The Trial Court considered the rival contentions and allowed the application filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for release of 52 laptops and UPS in their favour, while rejecting the similar application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.335 of 2019 before the learned LXIV Additional City Civil ad Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru. The revisional Court on re-consideration of the contention of the parties in light of the materials that are placed before it, dismissed the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:42446 CRL.P No. 4630 of 2021 revision petition vide order dated 18.03.2021. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Heard Sri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1, Sri S D N Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the concurrent orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the revisional Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
8. It is the contention of the petitioner that since he is the bonafide purchaser of 52 laptops and 1030 UPS from M/s -7- NC: 2024:KHC:42446 CRL.P No. 4630 of 2021 Regus India by paying consideration amount, he was legally entitled for the interim custody of the same. But the Trial Court and the revisional Court have committed an error in allowing the application filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and releasing 52 laptops and 1030 UPS to its interim custody.
9. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that M/s Regus India through accused Nos.1 and 2 placed orders for supply of 350 laptops, out of which, in the present case, 52 laptops were recovered from the custody of the petitioner. Similarly, respondent No.3 had supplied 1500 UPS in favour of accused No.1 who in turn sold the same to the petitioner herein, out of which, 1030 UPS were recovered from the custody of the petitioner. During investigation, it was found that M/s Regus India, represented by accused Nos.1 and 2 is a fictitious Company which had taken delivery of the laptops and UPS, but have not made any payment. The cheque issued in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 were never honored and no payment has been made as consideration. Even though, delivery of laptops were taken by accused Nos.1 and 2 on 21.12.2018, within no time, it was handed over to the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:42446 CRL.P No. 4630 of 2021 petitioner on 29.12.2018. It is the fraudulent transaction according to respondent Nos.2 and 3.
10. If the contentions of both the parties are taken into consideration, the petitioner is claming right over 52 laptops along with 1030 UPS through M/s Systech Services Ltd., and M/s Power Horse Enterprises. Admittedly, 52 laptops along with 1030 UPS were recovered from the custody of the petitioner. But, however, there are sufficient materials placed on record, which prima facie go to show that the laptops and UPS were dispatched by respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per the order placed by accused Nos.1 and 2.
11. It is the specific contention of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that no payment is made with regard to the same. The investigation made by the Investigating Officer discloses that M/s Regus India is a fictitious Company. The offences as stated above is alleged against the said Company. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for interim custody of 52 laptops along with 1030 UPS, cannot be accepted. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:42446 CRL.P No. 4630 of 2021
12. The Trial Court formed an opinion that even though the Investigating Officer recovered the laptops and UPS from the possession of the petitioner, since the laptops and UPS were dispatched by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to M/s Regus India, represented by accused Nos.1 and 2, they are entitled for its interim custody. Even though a different opinion could be formed to hold that since the petitioner has purchased the laptops and UPS by paying consideration amount, he is entitled for its interim custody, the Trial Court formed an opinion that it is respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein have dispatched the laptops and UPS to M/s Regus India, represented by accused Nos.1 and 2, and since they have not received any consideration amount for having supplied the goods, they are entitled for its interim custody. The said opinion is concurred by the revisional Court. Such findings cannot be found fault with simply because a different opinion could be formed. It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court in a connected criminal case has formed a different opinion by rejecting the claim of the complainant for interim custody of UPS and ordered for interim custody in favour of the accused. The same was upheld by the revisional Court by dismissing the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42446 CRL.P No. 4630 of 2021 revision preferred by the complainant. Even though the reasoning given by the Trial Court in both the cases are divergent, the same were upheld by the revisional court. Hence, I do not find any reason to upset the order by forming a different opinion.
13. It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court while allowing the application filed by respondent No.2 and releasing 52 laptops, directed it to execute indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.1,09,44,500/- and also allowing the application filed by respondent No.3 - Power House Enterprises and releasing 1030 UPS, directed it to execute indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.41,86,500/-. Therefore, the interest of the petitioner is safeguarded by the Trial Court by getting the indemnity bond and the entitlement of the laptops and UPS referred to above will be subject to the final result in the case before the Trial Court.
14. I have gone through the impugned order passed by Trial Court, which was confirmed by the revisional Court. It has taken into consideration all the rival contentions of the parties and arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any illegality or
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42446 CRL.P No. 4630 of 2021 perversity in the concurrent orders passed by both the Courts below. I do not find any merits in the petition to entertain the same. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/-
CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29