Karnataka High Court
Shankarappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 2008
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE :~11GH COURT OF KARNATAKA H
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD f "
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF sEPrEM$-QR; ?.?;fo§_s "
BEFORE
THE HOIWBLE MR JUSTICE :C%J..R1;K'UMAi§;:SwAz§i*f"'~v "
CRIMINAL PE3'1'1':§jI€,N0.'i3:'3r;/ zoés
BETWEEN:
SHANKARAPPA, ' u
s/0 SHIVARAYAPPA SHIRKGL,
AGED Amouqfvs-¢««.yiEARs, ._ ~'
OCCUPATIO.N.,SE{fr§\H;_CE, A
R/O DURGA :::;:>1,0'N"2i, , " _
SAP'I'APURLAS2'.P;'§3TOP - . A
DISTRI{';TvD_HARW£';,?3~, ..PE'I"I'FIONER
(BY SR1 s'u_Ris:s1~§"'ip._ féA:';D§{::AGADD1,ADv.)
5:51;; n
' ff£fH'E STATE 13:21:' KARNATAKA,
' ,.BE'-VITS._VS'E'Af'F.E'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HI-GH .r:'<:=.UR'i'f'TL3§._:~I1,D1N<3s,
'«.BANGALo'12.§:.'T:= .. RESPONDENT
(3% sRz':ANv.§ND K. NAVALGIMATH, HCGP}
V " THIS CRIMINAL PETITEON IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR..E'.C. PRAYING TO SET ASEDE THE PRDER DATED
";4;11/200? PASSED £3? THE PRL. S.J., DHARWAD, IN CRL.RP
V' _No.199,/06 AND THE ORDER DA'I'ED_11/10/2006 PASSED RY
" THE PRL. C.J.(JR.DN} AND JMFC, DHARWAD, IN
C.C. NO.60l2006.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITEON COMING ON FOR ADMISSION-
THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWENG:
A/'
ORDER
This Criminal Petition. is filed under secu9gM"%4S2'%l§f:'a1;e Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set afifidc datfid 14/11/2007 passed by thti' 'J:t:c1Eg3, ' Dhazwad in Criminai Revision Pctizgigméb. a§:;. meu ordctr dated 11/ 10/2006 fly. ""~ t;-'ipai: Civil"
Judgefiiunior Division) V.a~aéf Jayme, -:>ha£wad, in C.C.No.60/ 2005.
2. The facéts of "ti:1e"p::i).é;i=:z~,a1t:3:«i>n case is as under:
'aion,g her husband and anotlmr persofi; uwhé of the complainant, approached acqused who Secretary ofAbhj1fian Housing CO-'= o'§é iafivc the compiainant by paying Rs.215[~ V fiember and obtained a receipt in respect of the fuxflrzer alleged that accused No.1 tokl the to deposit Rs.15,000/~ in his personal account A ff git"'--~.Syndicate Bank beaxing account 240.6484 instead sf gdi:f:cti11g her to deposit the same in the account of the Society and thereby it is aiiegeci that accused No.1 has €/ committed the ofience punisahble under Section 420---_of the Indian Penal Code.
3. in the trial Court, the aecn.see{ petition for discharge. The ':
chargesheet and other matfiiial placegiion wC.o--.i'd'ti:ie conclusion that the accused iiasziot miade"'ou7t case for discharge. The trial held as under:
141.' ' Vilhsgj 'fizateriais on goingi;@1,igh,"t.*ie'"i3ecoxds it shows course of his investigation xAi3Jas'--v.7VIit"tgf:.I1.i the Secretaxy of Ahhixnan Housing tfofoperzttive society. in View of the said 2 ietter nad_cirVessed by the P.S.I. Suburban P.S., . E"Aconoe.;"ned of the society has given by his letter dtdj 7 {es 105. On going the said ietter it shows that on 5.8.89 the particular period accused was the " of the Abhiman Housing Co-operafive society. Further on going through the question No.7 and 10 it discloses that the account bearing No.64-84 in Syndicate Bank is not pertaining to the Abhiman Housing Co-operative society. So also on going through the statement furnished that the account bearing No.6484 is standing in Q/' the name of accused. Apart from the counter the challan is produced. It shows amount of Rs.15,000/- is depositedA"':'~in,:AT:Vt}ie*~ account bearing NO.6484. it L_ is evident that A/c No.64£§4 name of the accused. Whetjieeélee' ing 1*eeli.ex1.*s Sec.42O of we is attzecgee er inn: he consfiered during the of in order to estabiislg; 'fi:aa&.t Whethef 'she accused has or not the evidence is on going thmugh pI*:i'-_a-seeutgiofx' shows that to ShOW that the gmmeon to defraud the him to deposit the moeey. = There§?;>ie,..'~"I am of the opinion that there ' nave p1iii1a_,Vf;§eieA:mateIia1 to frame charge against ' . other contentions of the accused 3 T. it xequires the evidence to come to ' coiieitisien.
~~ Being aggieved by the same, the petitioner A ":. ' Revision Petition before izhe Court of Sessions. The Vesum and substance of the finding of the Court of Sessions is that copy of the counter foil of the cha}3.an of Syndicate Bank dated 5.8.1989 diacioses that Rs.15,900/-- was credited to La' V 5. The learneé counsel for the petitioner stzhaatitted _ that there is delay of 19 years in lodging the The delay has not been properly explained and ch.e§:1;gev 4_ net revea} the ingedients of Seetio2s'4}.S"§stij{iVIv ' T. Indian Penal Code. This dispute therefoze, the dispute has xaisezi of L' Society under Sectioysa 70 qt §§o--operative Societies Aet. V V. L V b a
6. The Header submits as followjks:
fiaéen .. delay in lodging the coznpiamt, prima facts case is gages' out against the petitioner and the * _ st the accused is with foundation.
V - contention of the learned counsel for the peetiq;-tar," that there is inordinate delay in lodging the AA There is no doubt that in this case there is énefdinate delay in lodging the complaint. During the course U ___§of arguments, ti:ie_ learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that amount of Rs.15,000/~ which has been deposited by the COI::ip}aina1:1t has not been returned to her. €/ It is the case of the accused that no amounts have been zieposited and totally denied the case of the pmsecutio-:1. In the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Procedure, the question of fact cannot be q 4' contention uxged by the learned counsek K 1 that dispute has to be referred iitg) under Section 70 of the * ~&oietie's. L' Act, 1959, if any __c1ispute____ toa1_1ch_ving Qcénsfimfion, management or they 'i:;~{{s:i:1css?.;.»(3f '4 'Co-operative society, such matters havg.»ioeb},'~: 1cferreo €oi2cgistrar. In the instont alleged against the petitioner is under fh¢ Pceiigaié Code. Therefore, question of the to the Registrar of Society does not .A 1'a_z%ise_ éfiq;1.4f.E1c_submissions made by the learned counsci for ._ cannot be accepted.
"73, Under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal " .. AA the Court can exercise inherent; power to make oriicrs as may be necessaxy to give efiect to any ozvder under this Code, or to pxevcnt abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice. In the instant case, Qx the leazned counsel for the petitioner failed. to. ' ground for abuse of process 0_f~~~E!J:_ly' V' investigating agency had investilgateti T the 'cas9i charge sheet and the trial mu.-:5: axfid . L' have held that there s is a 'fgcie.. the petitioner, in my " power by this Court to disttlrbilzhe proper. This criminal same is liable to be d'ismissed, :;
9, '-- ' ii} bf. above discussion, I pass the the fo11owing:V".__' ' _ V ORDER _ e.T*fl:s Cizifiiinal Petition is dismiesed.
Sell-
Judge