Karnataka High Court
Shrimant vs The State Of Karnataka, on 22 June, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRL. P. NO.101569/2016
C/W
CRL. P. NOS.100759/2016, 100124/2017,
101566/2016, 100003/2017, 100005/2017,
100004/2017, 101491/2015, 101402/2016,
100884/2016, 100883/2016, 100882/2016,
101368/2016, 101452/2016, 101242/2016,
100718/2016, 100793/2016, 101752/2015,
100624/2016,
IN CRL. P. NO.101569/2016
BETWEEN:
Shrimant S/o Jinnappa Khangond
Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Halingali, Tq: Jamakhandi, Dist: Bagalkot
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Prashant S. Kadadevar, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Through Police Sub Inspector Terdal Police Station,
Tq. Jamakhandi, Dist. Bagalkot
...Respondent
:2:
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal
case no. 897 of 2015 on the file of the learned Civil
Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banahatti for
the offence punishable under Section 37, 38 and 39 of
Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Section 3 and
4 Karnataka Prohibition Charging Exorbitant Interest
Act, 2004 and Section 420 of IPC.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.100759/2016
BETWEEN:
Shankar S/o Bhimappa Tiraki
Age: 57 years, Occ: Weaver,
R/o: Ashok Nagar, Banahatti
Tq: Jamakhandi, Dist: Bagalkot
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Prashant S. Kadadevar, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
In Banhatti Police Station
2. Hasansab S/o Sirajsab Jamakhandi
Age: 64 years, Occ: Weaver,
R/o: Chowdayya Circle, Near Old Water Tank
Banahatti, Tq: Jamakhandi, Dist: Bagalkot
...Respondents
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
:3:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the charge sheet and consequently
entire proceedings in Criminal case no. 351 of 2016 on
the file of the learned Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Banahatti for the offence
punishable under Section 5, 37, 38 and 39 of
Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Section 3 and
4 Karnataka Prohibition Charging Exorbitant Interest
Act, 2004 and Section 420 of IPC.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.100124/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Shanmukhappa Singanal S/o Venkappa Singanal
Age: 68 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: C.B.S.Nagar, Bannigidada Camp,
Gourishankar Traders, Shiva Talkies Road,
Gangavathi, Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
2. Suresh S/o Shanmukhappa Singanal
Age: 42 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: C.B.S.Nagar, Bannigidada Camp,
Gourishankar Traders, Shiva Talkies Road,
Gangavathi, Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
3. Mahesh S/o Venkappa Singanal
Age: 37 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: C.B.S.Nagar, Bannigidada Camp,
Gourishankar Traders, Shiva Talkies Road,
Gangavathi, Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
...Petitioners
(By Sri. B.Sharanabasawa, Advocate)
AND:
:4:
1. The State of Karnataka
By P.S.I. Koppal Town P.S.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building, Dharwad
2. Veerabasappa S/o Veeranna Naregal
Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o: Ilkal, now residing at B.T.Patil Nagar,
Koppal, Tq. & Dist: Koppal
...Respondents
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the complaint dated 17.07.2015
against the petitioners and set aside entire proceedings
in Crime No. 174 of 2015 (Old Crime No. 133 of 2015)
and FIR No. 536 of 2015 of Gangavathi Town Police
Station for an offences punishable under Section 4 of
the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant
Interest Act 2004 and under Section 420, 504 and 506
of IPC pending on the file of Court of Prl. Civil Judge
and JMFC Gangavathi.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.101566/2016
BETWEEN:
1. Juli Malleshwara Rao S/o Venkata Subba Rao
Aged about: 72 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Near Gandhi Chouk, Gangavathi,
Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
2. Suresh S/o Juli Malleshwara Rao
Aged about: 49 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Near Gandhi Chouk, Gangavathi,
Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
:5:
3. Kallayya S/o Sangayya Odisomath
Aged about: 47 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Near Gandhi Chouk, Gangavathi,
Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
...Petitioners
(By Sri. B.Sharanabasawa, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By P.S.I. Gangavathi Town P.S.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building, Dharwad
2. N.Venkateshwar Rao S/o Subbarao
Occ: Not known, Age Major
R/o: Anjinahalli
Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
...Respondents
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the complaint dated 23.07.2015
against the petitioners and set aside entire proceedings
in Crime No. 161 of 2015 (FIR No. 513 of 2015) of
Gangavathi Town Police Station for an offences
punishable under Section 4 of the Karnataka
Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2004
and under Section 420 and 506 read with 34 of IPC
pending on the file of the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and
JMFC Gangavathi.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.100003/2017
BETWEEN:
Chandrashekhar S/o Basavaraj Herur
:6:
Age: 25 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Camp: Bannigidad
Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Anand R. Kolli, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka, Bench Dharwad
(Through P.S.I. Gangavathi Police Station
Gangavathi Tq, Dist: Koppal)
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash entire proceedings pertaining to crime
no. 0141 of 2015 registered before Gangavathi Town
Police Station Tq:Gangavathi, Dist:Ballary for an offence
punishable under Section 3, 4 and 28 of Money Lenders
Act, 1961 and under Section 4 of Karnataka Prohibition
of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 pending on
the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC
Court, Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal, thereby allowing the
Criminal Petition.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.100005/2017
BETWEEN:
Yamanuri Chowdki S/o Hulugappa Chowdaki
Age: 30 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Bendara Wadi Camp: Bannigidad
Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Anand R. Kolli, Advocate)
:7:
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka, Bench Dharwad
(Through P.S.I. Gangavathi Police Station
Gangavathi Tq, Dist: Koppal)
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire proceedings pertaining to
crime no. 0144 of 2015 registered before Gangavathi
Town Police Station Tq:Gangavathi, Dist:Ballari for an
offence punishable under Section 3, 4 and 28 of Money
Lenders Act, 1961 and under Section 4 of Karnataka
Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004
pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and
JMFC Court, Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal, thereby allowing
the Criminal Petition.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.100004/2017
BETWEEN:
Nagaraj S/o Chalageri
Age: 30 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Camp: Bannigidad
Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Anand R. Kolli, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
:8:
High Court of Karnataka, Bench Dharwad
(Through P.S.I. Gangavathi Police Station
Gangavathi Tq, Dist: Koppal)
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire proceedings pertaining to
crime no. 0140 of 2015 registered before Gangavathi
Town Police Station Tq:Gangavathi, Dist:Ballari for an
offence punishable under Section 3, 4 and 28 of Money
Lenders Act, 1961 and under Section 4 of Karnataka
Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004
pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and
JMFC Court, Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal, thereby allowing
the Criminal Petition.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.101491/2015
BETWEEN:
T.N.S.V.Prasad S/o Krishnamurthy
Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o: M.P.Prakash Nagar, Near Markandeshwar
D.Ed. College, Hospet
Tq: Hospet, Dist: Bellary
...Petitioner
(By Sri. B.Sharanabasava, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by
Gangavathi Rural P.S., Gangavathi
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Circuit Building, Dharwad
:9:
2. Mallikarjuna
S/o Veerabhadrappa Rachanagoudru
Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculturist
R/o Dasanal Village, Tq: Gangavathi,
Dist: Koppal
...Respondents
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP for R1;
Sri V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate for R2)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash complaint dated 19/07/2015 against
the petitioner and set aside the entire proceedings in
crime no. 223/2015 of Gangavathi Rural Police Station
for an offence punishable under Section 4 of KPCEI Act,
2004 r/w 504 of IPC pending on the file of the court of
Prl. Civlil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gangavathi
***
IN CRL. P. NO.101402/2016
BETWEEN:
Shankar S/o Laxman
Aged about: 31 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: 5th Cross, Murarinagar,
Gangavathi, Taluk: Gangavathi
Dist: Koppal
...Petitioner
(By Sri. B.Sharanabasava, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka Bench, At Dharwad
By its Gangavathi Town Police Station
: 10 :
2. Raghavendra
S/o Venkappa
Aged about: 35 years, Occ: Private Employee
R/o Murarinagar, Gangavathi
Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
...Respondents
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP for R1;
Sri V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate for R2)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash complaint dated 19/07/2015 against
the petitioner and set aside the entire proceedings in
crime no. 0153 of 2015 (FIR No.494 of 2015) of
Gangavathi Town Police Station for an offence
punishable under Section 4 of KPCEI Act, 2004 I/S 504
and 506 of IPC. Pending on the file of the court of Prl.
Civlil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gangavathi
***
IN CRL. P. NO.100884/2016
BETWEEN:
Rajkumar Mohanlal Kattar
Age: 50 years, Occ: Business
R/o: Basaveshwar Housing Colony
Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Anand R. Kolli, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka by
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka Bench, Dharwad
(Through Police Sub Inspector
Gangavathi Police Station
Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal)
: 11 :
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire proceedings pertaining
Gangavati Police, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal Crime No.
142/2015 for an O/P/U/S. 28, 3, 4 of KML Act-1961
and Section 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging
Exorbitant Interest Act 2004 by allowing the Criminal
Petition
***
IN CRL. P. NO.100883/2016
BETWEEN:
Sangappa Somalingappa Oli
Age: 55 years, Occ: Business
R/o: Satyanarayan Pet. 2nd Stage
Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal - 583 227
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Anand R. Kolli, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka Bench, Dharwad
(Through Police Sub Inspector
Gangavathi Police Station
Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal)
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire proceedings pertaining to
Crime No. 146/2015 registerd before Gangavati Town
Police Station, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal for an
O/P/U/S. 28, 3, 4 of KML Act-1961 and Section 4 of
: 12 :
Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest
Act 2004.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.100882/2016
BETWEEN:
1. Anandgouda Chickabenakal
Age: 33 years, Occ: Business
R/o: Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal
2. Koppal Shivu Gangavati
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business
R/o: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal
3. Ambresh Mallapur
Age: 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal
4. Pampanna Nayak
Age: 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal
5. Yallappa Kadralli Chickabenakal
Age: 48 years, Occ: Business
R/o: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal
6. Eranna Nayak
Age: 36 years, Occ: Business
R/o: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal
...Petitioners
(By Sri. Anand R. Kolli, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
: 13 :
High Court of Karnataka Bench, Dharwad
(Through Police Sub Inspector
Gangavathi Police Station
Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal)
2. Manunath S/o R.Mani
Age: 37 years, Occ: Business
Post/R/o Basavadurga
Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal
...Respondents
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP for R1;
Sri. N.D.Gunde, Advocate for R2)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire proceedings pertaining
Gangavati Police Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal Crime No.
77/2015 for an O/P/U/S. 506, 504, 379 of IPC and
Section 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging
Exorbitant Interest Act 2004. There by allowing the
Criminal Petition.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.101368/2016
BETWEEN:
Kalyankumar S/o Mahavir Yallatti
Age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Halingalli, Tq. Jamakhandi,
Dist: Bagalkot
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Prashant S. Kadadevar, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka Bench, Dharwad
: 14 :
Through Police Sub Inspector
Terdal Police Station
Tq: Jamakhandi, Dist: Bagalkot
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal
Case No. 902 of 2015 on the file of the learned Civil
Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banahatti for
the offence punishable under Section 37, 38 and 39 of
Karnataka Money Lender Act, 1961 and Section 3 and 4
Karnataka Prohibition Charging Exorbitant Interest Act,
2004 and Section 420 of IPC.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.101452/2016
BETWEEN:
Vithoba Shetti
Age: 50 years, Occ: Business
R/o 3rd Ward Sirigeri
Village Siruguppa Tq. Ballari
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Anand R.Kolli, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by its State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka Bench, Dharwad
(Through Police Sub Inspector
Sirigeri Police Station Siriguppa Tq.
Dist: Ballari)
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
: 15 :
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire proceedings pertaining to
crime no. 0105 of 2015 registered before sirigiri Police
Station Taluka: Siriguppa, District: Ballari for an
offence punishable under Sections 37, 38, 39, 3 and 4
of Money Lender Act, 1961 and under Section 28, 3, 4
of Karnataka Prohibition of charging exorbitant interest
act, 2004 read with 420 of IPC pending on the file of
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and judicial
magistrate first class court, Siriguppa, district: Ballari
thereby allowing the criminal petition.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.101242/2016
BETWEEN:
Nagarajaswamy S/o Mahalingaiah
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business
R/o 11rd Ward Sirigeri Village - 583 121
Tq.Siruguppa Dt.Ballari
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Anand R.Kolli, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by its State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka Bench, Dharwad
(Through Police Sub Inspector
Sirigeri Police Station Siriguppa Tq.
Dist: Ballari)
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire proceedings pertaining to
crime no. 0104 of 2015 registered before sirigiri Police
: 16 :
Station Taluka: Siriguppa, District: Ballari for an
offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 28 of
Karnataka Prohibition of charging exorbitant interest
act, 2004 and under Section 3,4,37,38 and 39 of Money
Lenders Act r/w 420 of IPC.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.100718/2016
BETWEEN:
1. Ramareddy, Age: 49 years,
R/o Mahalaxmi Nilaya, Near
Vikasa Balavana, J.P.Nagara
Hosapete, Dist: Ballari, Karnataka
2. Smt. Sudha, Age: 45 years,
R/o Mahalaxmi Nilaya, Near
Vikasa Balavana, J.P.Nagara
Hosapete, Dist: Ballari, Karnataka
3. Bhaskara Reddy, Age: 42 years,
R/o Mahalaxmi Nilaya, Near
Vikasa Balavana, J.P.Nagara
Hosapete, Dist: Ballari, Karnataka
...Petitioners
(By Sri. M.Amaregouda, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Town Police Station PSI
Represented by the State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
At Dharwad
2. Smt. G.Suguna W/o G.Ganesh
: 17 :
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o Opp. Mallige Tourist Home,
Jambunatha Road, Hosapete, Dist: Ballari
Karnataka
...Respondents
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR registered
against petitioners for the Crime No. 130/2016 on
13/06/2016 and complaint on 16/06/2016 for the
offence punishable under Section 39 of Karnataka
Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Section 3 and 4
Karnataka Prohibition Charging Exorbitant interest Act
2004, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC Court, Hosapete.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.100793/2016
BETWEEN:
1. Sreenivas S/o Anjinappa
Occ: Doctor, Age: 37 years,
R/o LIG No.19, KHB Colony,
Gandhinagar, Ballari
2. Sreenivasalu S/o Honnappa
Occ: Assistant Administrative Officer LIC,
Age: 50 years, R/o LIG No.19, KHB Colony,
Gandhinagar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. M.Amaregouda, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
: 18 :
Brucepet Police Station Ballari
Represented by the State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
At Dharwad
2. Smt. Khaja Bee S/o Aslam
Age: 55 years, Occ: Businessman
R/o W.No.11, D.No.106,
Pinjar Oni Ballari
...Respondents
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the C.C.No. 1232/2015 pending in the
court of the First Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, at
Ballari and also complaint, FIR registered by the Ballari
Brucepet Police Station in Crime No. 145/2015 dated
25.07.2015 and charge sheet no. 69/2015 dated
13.08.2015 against the petitioners for the offence
punishable under Section 38 & 39 of Karnataka Money
Lenders Act, 1961 and Section 3 & 4 Karnataka
Prohibition Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004, r/w
420 of IPC.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.101752/2015
BETWEEN:
Anand Paravva aliyas Parvati
Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Naduvinkeri, Terdal
Tq: Jamakhandi, Dist: Bagalkot
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Anand R.Kolli, Advocate)
AND:
: 19 :
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by the State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka Bench Dharwad
(Through CPI, Terdal Police Station
Tq. Jamkhandi, Dist: Bagalkot)
2. Mahaning S/o Adeveppa Baligar
Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Palbhavi,
Tq. Raibagh, Dist: Belgavi
...Respondents
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire proceedings pertaining to
crime No. 99/2015 registered before Terdal Police
Station for an offence punishable under Section 37, 38,
39, 5 of Money Lenders Act, 1961 and under Section
420, 506(2), 342, 323 of IPC.
***
IN CRL. P. NO.100624/2016
BETWEEN:
Sri Shivasharanappa S/o Sheelavantappa Baligar
Age: 44 years, Occ: LIC Agent
R/o Mudhol
Tq: Yalaburga, Dist: Koppal
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Prasad R. Sidhanti, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
By CPI, Yalaburga Police Station
(Represented by the State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench)
...Respondent
: 20 :
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the FIR registered against the
accused/petitioner in crime no. 83/2015 and
consequently quash the entire proceedings on the file of
the JMFC Court, Yalaburga
***
These petitions coming on for Admission, having
been heard and reserved for Orders on 12.04.2017, this
day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER
The above batch of petitions are filed by the petitioners in respective petitions invoking jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying the Court to quash the proceedings initiated by the Police for the offences punishable under the provisions of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961, 'for short KML', Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004, 'for short KPCEI' and Indian Penal Code, 1860 'for short IPC'.
: 21 :
2. The details of the petitions, crime number, offences and criminal cases registered, if any, are furnished in the chart as under:
Sl. Criminal Crime No. Offences C.C. No Petition and Police (Sections) number No. Station and the Court 1 101569 63/2015 37, 38 & 39 of 897/2015 of 2016 Teradal P.S. KML Act, Civil 1961, Judge &
3 and 4 of JMFC, KPCEI Act, Banahatti.
and 420 of
IPC
2 100759 122/2015 5, 37, 38 & 39 351/2016
of 2016 Banahatti of KML Act, Civil
P.S. 3 and 4 of Judge &
KPCEI Act, JMFC,
and 420 of Banahatti.
IPC
3 100124 174/2015 4 of KPCEI
of 2017 Gangavathi Act, and 420,
Town P.S. 504 & 506 of
IPC
4 101566 161/2015 4 of KPCEI
of 2016 Gangavathi Act, and 420,
Town P.S. 506 r/w 34 of
IPC
5 100003 141/2015 3, 4 & 28 of
of 2017 Gangavathi KML Act, 4 of
Town P.S. KPCEI Act.
6 100005 144/2015 3, 4 & 28 of
of 2017 Gangavathi KML Act, 4 of
: 22 :
Town P.S. KPCEI Act.
7 100004 140/2015 3, 4 & 28 of
of 2017 Gangavathi KML Act, 4 of
Town P.S. KPCEI Act.
8 101491 223/2015 4 of KPCEI
of 2015 Gangavathi Act, and 504
Rural P.S. of IPC
9 101402 153/2015 4 of KPCEI
of 2016 Gangavathi Act, and 504
Town P.S. & 506 of IPC
10 100884 142/2015 3, 4 & 28 of
of 2016 Gangavathi KML Act; and
Town P.S. 4 of KPCEI
Act, 2004.
11 100883 146/2015 3, 4 & 28 of
of 2016 Gangavathi KML Act, and
Town P.S. 4 of KPCEI
Act.
12 100882 77/2015 4 of KPCEI
of 2016 Gangavathi Act, 506, 504
Town P.S. and 379 of
IPC.
13 101368 64/2015 37, 38 & 39 of 902/2015
of 2016 Terdal P.S. KML Act, 3 & Civil
4 of KPCEI Judge &
Act, and 420 JMFC,
of IPC. Banahatti
14 101452 105/2015 3, 4, 37, 38 &
of 2016 Sirigeri P.S. 39 of KML
Act,
: 23 :
3, 4 and 28 of
KPCEI Act,
and 420 of
IPC
15 101242 104/2015 3, 4, 37, 38 &
of 2016 Sirigeri P.S. 39 of KML
Act,
3, 4 and 28 of
KPCEI Act,
and 420 of
IPC
16 100718 130/2016 39 of KML Act
of 2016 of Hospet and
Town P.S. 3, 4 of KPCEI
Act
17 100793 145/2015 38 & 39 of 1232/201
of 2016 of Brucepet KML Act, 5 on the
P.S. 3, 4 KPCEI file of
Act, 2004 and Addl. Civil
420 of IPC Judge
(Jr.Dn.) &
JMFC,
Ballari.
18 101752 99/2015 5, 37, 38 & 39
of 2015 Terdal P.S. of KML Act
and 420,
506(2), 342 &
323 of IPC
19 100624 83/2015 38 & 39 of
of 2016 Yalaburga KML Act,
P.S. 3, 4 of KPCEI
Act, 2004,
and 420 of
IPC
: 24 :
3. The sum and substance of the allegations against the respective petitioners herein/accused in the above cases are almost one and the same, hence, the factual aspects pertaining to Crl.P.101569/2016 are taken for discussion, which are as under:
(a) The respondent in the said case had registered the suo-moto complaint on the basis of the oral information about the petitioner stating that he was engaged in Money Lending business run illegally in which he used to bribe poor and innocent people by receiving meter interest. After getting such information, it was brought to the notice of DSP, Jamakhandi and CPI, Banahatti, and as per their directions, along with Terdal PS employees CPC 418, 1176, 706, 469, 1331 and WPC1486 and the panchas present at the time of first event of raid panchanama, went to the spot in their official jeep around 13-30 hrs. The complainant had availed the perfect message regarding the matter and as : 25 : the accused has the chances of destructing the available documents or they might engage in hiding them in other places and as the time is stipulated and also as it is unable to avail orders from Hon'ble Court, the matter was disclosed to those two panchas, who were present.
The panch witnesses were called with Police to be present at the spot of raid and asked them to write the Panchanama and they too agreed to be panchas. Hence, along with the said panchas, complainant and his staff approached the residence of the petitioner/accused, who was present in the house and on raid, the petitioner admitted that he used to undertake money lending (finance) business illegally, and that he had no license to carry on the said business.
(b) The petitioner without having any legal permission or the licence, was dealing with money lending business and charging huge amount of interest (meter interest) from innocent and poor people and the petitioner produced the promissory notes received from : 26 : the borrowers, duly signed by the said borrowers and the details of the said promissory notes are also mentioned in the petitions.
(c) Hence, the said documents were seized in the presence of panchas and the detailed panchanama was written at the spot in between 11.30 to 12.30. The petitioner accused without any licence or permission of the requisite authority, engaged in illegal running of money lending business from which he used to bribe huge amount of interest from innocent and poor people by getting executed the promissory notes from them. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered against the petitioner for the said offences.
The petitioner/accused challenged the legality and correctness of the proceedings on the Grounds as mentioned in the petition.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for each of the petitioners-accused in the : 27 : respective petitions and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the registration of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are totally illegal and they are against the provisions of law. As per Section 15 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961, it is only the Registrar or Assistant Registrar or any Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may enter into the premises of the petitioners to require the production of records or documents and they are the only persons, who are having the power to entry, inspection and seizure of documents. But in the above mentioned cases, it is not the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar or any Officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf, who entered the premises of the petitioners, but is only the Police, who is the complainant, along with his staff, illegally entered into : 28 : the premises of the petitioners. Hence, they submitted that the alleged entry of the Police Officers into the premises of the petitioners itself is illegal and it is not in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under Section 15 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act. Learned counsel have also brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of Section 5 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging exorbitant interest Act, 2004, which provides procedure to be followed by the borrower for the repayment of the loan amount and the initiation of the criminal case is not at all warranted as per the said provision. Learned counsel also submitted that when the offence under Section 420 of IPC is also registered, it shows that there is credible information to the Police even for the commission of cognizable offence; when that is so, the Police ought to have registered the FIR before proceeding to the spot and hence, there is non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. Without registering the FIR and : 29 : without making the entry of the information received in the diary kept in the concerned Police Station, the Police machinery proceeded to the spot, entered into the premises of the petitioners and seized the documents and alleged to have drawn the mahazar at the spot and arrested the petitioners. After completing all these process, they went back to the Police Station and thereafter, lodged the complaint and registered the FIR. It is submitted that after the investigation is almost completed, thereafter, complaint was lodged and FIR was registered, which is unknown to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, submitted to allow the petitions and to quash the proceedings.
In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following decisions:
i. Appeal (civil) 5540 of 2001 in the case of M/s.P.Vaikunta Shenoy & Co. vs. P.Hari Sharma;: 30 :
ii. KANTLJ-1975-2-75 in the case of V.Rasquinha vs. State of Karnataka;
iii. Crl.P.101618/2016 in the case of Sri G.Eshwar vs. State of Karnataka and Another;
iv. (2014) 2 SCC 1 in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others; v. Crl.P.102048/2015 dated 15.12.2015 in the case of Vijay Suresh Korawar vs. The State of Karnataka;
vi. Crl.P.101394/2015 dated 18.09.2015 in the
case of Manjunath vs. The State of
Karnataka;
vii. Crl.P.101217/2015 dated 17.06.2016 in the
case of Sangamesh vs. The State of
Karnataka;
viii. 2016 (4) KCCR 3593 in the case of Sri C.Mruthyunjayaswamy vs. State by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police and Others.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that when the petitioners were carrying on the money lending business without holding the money lending licence or the required permission under the Karnataka : 31 : Money Lenders Act, the question of complainant complying the mandatory requirement of Section 15 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act will not arise at all.
The materials seized during such inspection clearly shows that the petitioners were doing money lending business without having valid licence and charging exorbitant interest to the poor borrowers and thereby they committed the alleged offence. Therefore, he has submitted that the proceedings are rightly initiated, there is no illegality in initiating the proceedings and hence, there are no grounds made out by the petitioners for quashing of the proceedings. Hence, submitted to reject all the petitions.
In support of his contentions, learned HCGP has relied upon the following decision:
i. Crl.P.11269/2011 dated 05.08.2013 in the case of Anand R.Chindak and Another vs. The State of Karnataka and Another.: 32 :
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the respective petitions, materials produced by the petitioners along with the petitions. Decisions relied upon by the learned counsel on both sides, which are referred above.
8. In the petitions, along with the alleged offence under the provisions of Karnataka Money Lenders Act and also Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004, an offence under Section 420 of IPC is also one of the offence, which is a cognizable offence. The alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act are also cognizable offences.
When that is so, whenever it is the specific case of the prosecution that Police received the credible information for commission of cognizable offence, the Police have to enter the said information in the diaries kept in the Police Station, then they have to register the FIR before : 33 : proceeding to the spot for conducting further investigation in the matter.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court also made it clear in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others that in case of receipt of information regarding cognizable offence and as per Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., registration of the FIR at the earliest point of time i.e., immediately after receipt of such information, is general rule. But in these matters, though such information regarding commission of cognizable offence is said to have been received by the Police, even then, there is no registration of the FIR immediately after the receipt of such information and even there is no material produced by the prosecution in these cases that they have entered atleast the information received, in the diaries kept in the said Police Stations and what is the said information, no documents are produced before the Court. Therefore, : 34 : the mandatory requirement of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. is not followed by the Police before proceeding to the spot on the basis of the said information.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant along with the staff and panch witnesses entered into the premises of the respective petitioners and they have seized the documents, but in this connection and to know the power and the procedure for such entry, inspection and seizure of the documents, Section 15 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act is the relevant provision, which reads as under:
15. Power of authorised officer to require production of records or documents and power of entry, inspection and seizure.-(1) The Registrar, Assistant Registrar or any Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may, for the purpose of verifying whether the business of money-
lending is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act, enter the premises of the money lender or any person who in his : 35 : opinion is carrying on the business of money-lending and call upon him to produce any record or document relating to such business and every such money lender or person shall allow such inspection and produce such record or document.
(2) The Registrar, Assistant Registrar or the other officer referred to in sub-section (1) may, for the purposes of the said sub-
section, search the premises and seize any record and document as may be necessary. The record or document seized shall be retained only for such period as may be necessary for the purposes of examination, prosecution or other legal action: Provided that the provisions of Sections 100 and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) shall, so far as may be, apply to such search and seizure:
Provided further that for every record or document seized, appropriate acknowledgement shall be given to the person from whose custody it is seized. (3) The Registrar, Assistant Registrar or the other officer referred to in sub-section (1) : 36 : shall also have power to summon and examine the money lender or any person who in his opinion is in a position to furnish relevant information.
11. Therefore, it is only the Registrar and the Assistant Registrar or any other person, who is authorised by the State Government in that behalf only are the persons authorised to enter into the premises of the money lenders to inspect and seize the documents and also to verify whether the business of money lending is carried on in accordance with the provisions of money lending or not.
But, admittedly, in the cases on hand, the persons entered into the premises of the alleged money lenders i.e., the petitioners/accused in the above petitions, are neither the Registrars nor the Assistant Registrars nor any person authorised by the State Government in that behalf. There is no material produced to show that the said Police Officer was authorised by the State : 37 : Government to enter into the premises in case of the alleged offence under the provisions of Karnataka Money Lenders Act. Therefore, the alleged entry into the premises of the petitioners herein is also not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Karnataka Money Lenders Act.
12. Looking to the materials placed on record and as per the case of the prosecution when the information is said to have been received that some of the persons are charging exorbitant interest to the poor borrowers and they are collecting excess amount from them violating the provisions of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, the Police along with the staff and the panch witness proceeded to the spot, made an entry into the premises of the respective petitioners and they have seized the documents and they came to know that the petitioners are charging exorbitant interest to the loan advanced by them, the documents were seized : 38 : under the seizure mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses, then arrested the petitioners, came back to the Police Station, then the complaint was lodged and FIR was registered, so this procedure adopted by the complainant/Police shows that by the time the complaint was lodged and FIR was registered, more than half of the investigation was completed in these matters. Therefore, this clearly shows that even as per the Police, a cognizable offence was committed, and without registering the FIR immediately, the further investigation of the case has been proceeded with, which is against the mandatory requirements of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.
13. Apart from that sofar as the allegations that the witnesses, whose statements said to have been recorded that they are the borrowers of the loan from the above mentioned respective petitioners and stating further that the petitioners used to charge exorbitant : 39 : interest (meter interest) and thereby they were molesting the poor borrowers is concerned, there is a remedy provided to the borrowers that they can follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 5 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, which reads as under:
5. Deposit of money and presentation of petition to court and the procedure thereof.- (1) A debtor may deposit the money due in respect of a loan received by him from any person together with interest at the rate fixed by the State Government under section 28 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 into the Court having jurisdiction, along with a petition to record that the amount deposited is in full or part, satisfaction of. the loan including the interest therefor, as the case may be.
(2) The Court shall, on receipt of a petition under sub-section (1), refer a copy of the petition to the person mentioned in the petition, directing him to give his replies within a period of fifteen days as may be : 40 : granted by the Court. The Court may, after due inquiry and after considering the versions of both the parties, pass orders recording the satisfaction of the loan and interest therefor in full or in part, as the case may be.
14. When such procedure is contemplated, without following the said procedure, the borrowers said to have given the statement before the Investigating Officer is also cannot be considered to be proper and the procedure followed by the borrowers, in view of the above discussion and in view of the above mentioned legal infirmities in the cases, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have made out the case to allow the petitions. Accordingly, all the above petitions are allowed. The FIRs challenged by the petitioners herein in the respective petitions and the criminal proceedings initiated in criminal cases i.e., in C.C..351/2016 (in Crl.P.100759/2016), C.C.No.902/2015 (in Crl.P.101368/2016), which are pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Banahatti and C.C.No.1232/2015 : 41 : (in Crl.P.100793/2016) which is pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Ballari, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR