Karnataka High Court
Mr Prateek Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2025
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5170 OF 2024 (482)
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1773 OF 2023 (482)
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4487 OF 2023 (482)
IN CRL.P.NO.5170/2024:
BETWEEN:
NIRMAL DAULAT TORANE
S/O DAULAT TORANE,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT T/1/489, INDRAYANI SOCIETY,
NEAR NAV MAHARASHTRA
SCHOOL, RUPEENAGAR, NIGDI,
PUNE, MAHARASHTRA - 411 062.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARSHA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRIDHAR S.
S/O M. SHAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.87, 5TH CROSS,
25TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE,
HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED) 2 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR L.C.R IN SPL. CASE NO.967/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.967/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 409, 418, 420, 421, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND ALSO SEC. 8 AND 12 OF P.C. ACT, 1988, BASED ON THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE ATTIBELE POLICE, PENDING BEFORE THE IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER, WHEREIN HE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS ACCUSED NO.8 AND TO STALL ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT.
IN CRL.P.NO 1773 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHIVAPUTRA TANGA S/O LATE TIPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: THE THEN SENIOR SUB REGISTER ANEKAL, (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION) R/A NO.46, 1ST CROSS, 2ND FLOOR, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 020.
2. SRI. SRINIVAS D. N. S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: THE THEN S.D.A. IN THE OFFICE OF SUB REGISTER, (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION) R/A 48, SRI NILIYA SAI MEDIOUS PHASE-2 SWAMY VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, MUTTANALLUR CROSS, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 125.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRAVEENKUMAR K S., ADVOCATE) 3 AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE POLICE ANEKAL SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.
2. SRI. SHRIDHAR S. S/O M. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A NO.87, 6TH CROSS 25TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE, H.S.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 034.
..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2022 PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.967/2022 THERE BY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 409, 420, 421, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B READ WITH SEC.34 OF I.P.C. AND SECTIONS 8 AND 12 PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THEREON AND THE COMPLIANT IN CRIME NO.356/2022 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PRESENT PETITIONERS HEREIN WHO ARE ACCUSED NO.7 AND 14 RESPECTIVELY.
IN CRL.P NO 4487 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
MR. PRATEEK KUMAR S/O PRAFUL SHAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT ROW HOUSE NO.1, GOLD FIELD ENCLAVE, 4 SOUTH MAIN ROAD, KOREGAON PARK, PUNE - 411 001.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASHANTH H. S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BANGALORE.
2. MR. SRIDHAR S. S/O M. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.87, 6TH CROSS, 25TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
V/O DATED 19.12.2024 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR L.C.R. IN SPL.CASE NO.967/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.967/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 409, 420, 421, 418, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 8 AND 12 OF THE CONTROL OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, BASED ON THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE ATTIBELE POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER, WHEREIN HE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS ACCUSED NO.8 AND TO STALL ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT KALABURAGI BENCH, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 5
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 11.02.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 24.04.2025 CAV ORDER Criminal Petition No.5170/2024 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6, Criminal Petition No.1773/2023 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 14 and Criminal Petition No.4487/2023 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in Special Case No.967/2022 pending on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.356/2022 of Attibele Police, Bengaluru and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 409, 418, 420, 421, 418, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C. Act'].
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the respective petitioners and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State. 6
3. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.2 - Shridhar filed a complaint to the police on 20.09.2022 and based upon the same the police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 7A and 7C of P.C. Act. It is alleged that the complainant was whistle blower and having vested interest stating that the CBI and ED had undertaken investigation in respect of one Pearl Agro Corporation Limited Company [hereinafter referred to as the 'PACL Company'] alleging that there was financial misappropriation and cheating about Rs.49 crores. The Hon'ble Supreme Court formed a Committee headed by Hon'ble Justice Lodha, the former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [hereinafter referred to as 'Justice Lodha Committee'] to look after the grievance of the public who have transacted with the PACL Company and issued a direction not to alienate the properties held by the PACL Company without the permission of Justice Lodha Committee. The same was intimated to the Special Tahasildar, Anekal and District 7 Registrar not to mutate the properties belonging to the PACL Company.
4. It is alleged that accused No.1, who is not the petitioner herein, who is an Advocate, has forged the resolution copies of the said Company with the help of the Sub-Registrar i.e. accused No.7 and accused No.9 given GPA to accused No.2 and executed sale deed in favour of accused No.5 and the sale deed was registered on 10.01.2022 by showing the sale consideration. Hence, requested to take action against seven accused persons.
During the investigation, the police found various persons who were involved in the offence and charge sheet came to be filed. The petitioners had moved this Court for quashing the FIR on the previous occasion but the same was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition after filing the charge sheet. Accordingly, the accused Nos.6, 7, 14 and 8 are before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for accused No.6 has contended that accused No.6 is only an employee of accused No.10 - Megha Structures Infracon Pvt. Ltd. 8 Accused No.8 received the sale consideration. There is no direct allegation against the petitioners. Without making the company as accused, the trial cannot be proceeded against the employee of the company. Accused No.1 is a real estate agent and accused No.8 is said to have sold the property and there is no allegation against the petitioner except receiving the demand draft by accused No.8 and therefore, conducting proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law. The alleged offences will not attract against accused No.6. It is contended that accused No.8 is in Dubai and he is not a signatory to any documents. Therefore, there is no authorization, no condition precedent to transfer the property. Therefore, no offence is committed by accused No.8. Hence, prayed for quashing the same.
6. The learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.7 and 14 also contended that accused Nos.7 and 14 are the Sub-Registrars and at the time of taking cognizance there is no valid sanction. Therefore, the case 9 cannot be proceeded against them. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.
7. The Special Public Prosecutor objected the petitions contending that accused Nos.7 and 14 are the Sub-Registrars. Notice was served on them on 18.02.2017 not to mutate any property belonging to PACL Company. There was bar for registration of the document. Therefore, accused Nos.7 and 14, in collusion with the co- accused, allowed the registration of the document and the accused persons acted conspiring with the other accused. Therefore, they have been charge sheeted. There is violation of direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same is not genuine one. Accused No.8 given GPA through accused No.4 who prepared the fake demand draft which was confirmed in the investigation. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petitions.
8. Having heard the arguments, perused the records.
10
9. It is admitted fact that previously, some of the petitioners moved petition before this Court and they have withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition after filing of charge sheet and some of the accused persons especially accused Nos.11, 12, and 13 have filed petitions and this Court allowed the petition filed by accused No.12 in Criminal Petition No.2071/2023 and dismissed the petition filed by accused Nos.11 and 13 in Writ Petition No.3702/2023 and Criminal Petition No.2317/2023 respectively. The State has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.4492/2024 [SLP (Crl.) No.9629/2024] and in the said appeal accused No.12 undertook to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, the order of this Court has been set aside and petition filed by accused No.12 came to be dismissed as withdrawn.
10. On perusal of the records, especially the allegation against accused No.6, who is an employee of accused No.10 - Company who obtained GPA in his name and GPA said to be given by accused No.8, though he is from Dubai, and accused No.6 sold the property and 11 accused No.8 received the sale consideration by a demand draft. Accused Nos.9 and 10 were Directors of the Company. It is an admitted fact that the property in question held by the PACL Company has been handed over to Justice Lodha Committee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for settling the dispute by selling the property and paying to the investors. But the properties were purchased and sold by the accused persons where accused Nos.7 and 14 are the Sub-Registrars of Anekal, registered the sale deeds inspite of intimation delivered by the Tahsildar not to register the sale deed. The police investigated the matter in detail and filed the charge sheet.
11. It is seen from the records that accused No.2 executed the sale deed on behalf of accused No.9 Woodsvilla Project Pvt. Limited in favour of accused No.5 where the accused No.7 was Sub-Registrar who registered the document. Some witnesses from the Sub-Registrar's office namely Venkatesh given statement. Accused No.7 instructed to register the sale deed by receiving bribe. Accused No.14 is also Sub-Registrar who allowed the 12 parties to execute the sale deed knowing fully well that there is prohibition to execute the sale deed in respect of properties held by the PACL Company. After the detailed investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. Though it is contended that the company was not the party and employee cannot be charge sheeted, but the police can also file additional charge sheet by invoking the provisions of Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. and the trial court can also implead the Company as a co-accused by acting under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
12. That apart, the contention of learned counsel for accused Nos.7 and 14 is that the Departmental Enquiry initiated by the Department has been exonerated therefore, they are entitled for quashing the criminal proceedings. Whereas the respondent's counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and others1 and another judgment in the case of Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central 1 (2022) 15 SCC 228 13 2 Bureau of Investigation & Another and contended that the Court cannot quash the entire criminal proceedings in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and High Court can direct the authority to take sanction and then proceed instead of completely quashing the entire proceedings.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Shantaben's case supra at para-37 as under:
"37. Now, so far as the observation made by the High Court that in view of bar under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no sanction was obtained is concerned, the aforesaid also cannot be ground to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Looking to serious allegations against the Police Officers of misuse of powers and it is alleged that innocent persons residing in the society were beaten and even in the earlier day the phone call was made by the complainant / victim informing that thieves have come in the society and complaint was made that nothing is being done despite repeated such incidents and the alleged incident in the present case is in the midnight when again Police Officers along with additional police staff went to the 2 (2021) 2 SCC 525 14 village and the allegation against the accused are with respect to second incident, it is very debatable whether power under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply and the acts which are alleged to have been done by the accused / Police Officers can be said to be part of official duties. Therefore, at this stage, to quash the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is impermissible. Even assuming that the High Court was right that in absence of sanction under Section 197, the proceedings are vitiated, in that case, the High Court could have directed the authority to take sanction and then proceed, instead of completely quashing the entire criminal proceedings."
14. In another judgment in the case of Fertico Marketing's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if any defective or illegal investigation or taking cognizance the trial cannot be set aside and illegality may have bearing on question of prejudice or miscarriage of justice as per Sections 462 and 465 of Cr.P.C.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held in a recent judgment that merely the Government servant is 15 exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry, that itself is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings and the standard of proof in criminal case is altogether different. That apart, in this case, the property belonging to PACL Company has been within the custody of Justice Lodha Committee and without permission from the Hon'ble Justice Lodha Committee, it cannot be alienated. But it is seen from the records that some third parties were created the documents and alienated the property of the PACL Company without permission of Justice Lodha Committee and without any sale consideration by producing fake demand drafts and no enchashment were made and accused Nos.7 and 14, in collusion with the other accused, allowed registration of the documents. Therefore, if at all any defence available to accused Nos.7 and 14, they have to take the defence in the trial and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on that ground.
16. Some of the accused persons moved similar petitions and they have withdrawn. Considering the facts 16 and circumstances of the case, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage.
Accordingly, all the three Criminal Petitions filed by Accused Nos.6, 7, 14 and 8 are dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE SWK CT:SI