Karnataka High Court
Mr. Avinash Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2357/2016
BETWEEN:
Mr.Avinash Shetty
S/o Shridhar Shetty
Aged about 48 years
#201, Flat A,
Sri Devi Prasad Apartment
Near Marigudi, Suratkal
Mangalore.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Varun Jaykumar Patil, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka
through Mangalore East Police Station
Represented by the State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building, High Court,
Bangalore.
...Respondent
(By Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, SPP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the FIR dated 08.11.2012 and
the complaint in Crime No.154/2012 registered by the
-2-
Station House Officer, Mangalore East Police Station,
D.K. District in C.C.No.445/2015 in Crime No.154/2012
on the file of the II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and C.J.M.,
Mangalore for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code against the
petitioner.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Learned SPP is directed to take notice for respondent.
Heard Sri Varun Jaykumar Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned SPP appearing for the State. Perused the records.
2. Suo-moto complaint in Crime No.154/2012 came to be registered by the Mangaluru East Police station against petitioner accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC on the ground that he was indulging in distribution of fake diploma and degree certificates for a sum of Rs.30,000 to Rs.95,000/- -3- and on the basis of said information CCB police conducted a raid at the premises known and called as City Arcade Building, Banderwell, Mangalore City, I floor, room No.101 and apprehended the accused petitioner and seized incriminatory material. On completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed in CC No.445/2015.
3. It is the contention of Mr.Varun Jaykumar Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that prima facie allegation made in the complaint does not disclose any act to connect petitioner to the alleged crime and he was only an employee of the company and the investigation conducted by the jurisdictional police leading to fling of charge sheet does not implicate petitioner and as such continuation of proceedings against petitioner would be abuse of the process of law. Hence, he seeks for quashing of the proceedings.
-4-
4. Per contra, learned S.P.P. would defend the initiation of the proceedings against petitioner and continuation of same.
5. Perusal of the records would disclose that on the suo-moto registration of the complaint it was noticed by the jurisdictional police station that the petitioner was purportedly selling fake diploma and degree certificate in the office situated at Mangalore town and on conducting a raid by the CCB police, duplicate marks cards and certificates came to be seized. As such proceedings against petitioner came to be initiated for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. At this stage it cannot be said that the prosecution has not placed any material to proceed against petitioner accused. As to whether petitioner had actively participated in the said act as alleged by the prosecution, is an issue which will have to be examined by the jurisdictional Court after trial and only after prosecution -5- has lead its evidence. At this stage, it cannot be held that there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution. The allegations made in the complaint and the material seized by the CCB police during the course of investigation would prima facie establish that petitioner herein was found at the place where the duplicate and fake certificates and marks cards were seized and he had been working in the Company. In that view of the matter this Court finds that there is no extra ordinary circumstances obtained in this case to arrive at a conclusion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no good ground to entertain this petition and accordingly it is rejected.
However, it is made clear that no opinion is expressed with regard to merits of the case. -6-
IA No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE *ap/-