Karnataka High Court
Vinayak V. Shetty, vs The State By Sirsi P.S., on 16 March, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 16th day of March 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
Criminal Petition No.100067/2017
BETWEEN
VINAYAK V. SHETTY,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
BHOOTESHWAR PATTINA SAHAKARI
SANGHA NIYAMIT, C.P. BAZAR, SIRSI,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S. G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE BY SIRSI P.S.,
REP. BY ITS ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH BUILDING,
DAHRWAD.
2. THE CENTRAL ARECANUT AND COCOA
MARKETING AND PROCESSING
CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED (CAMPCO LTD.),
SIRSI BRANCH, REP. BY ITS
SENIOR MANAGER (REGION)
SRI.A.MURALIDHAR, S/O RAMACHANDRA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, CAMPCO LTD.,
MARKET YARD, SIRSI CITY,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. ANANT HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 136 OF 2016 REGISTERED
WITH SIRSI NEW MARKET POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, SIRSI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 409, 416, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477-A READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Perused the records.
2. The 2nd respondent-Co-operative Society lodged a complaint against the accused persons, as many as nine. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.6 in the First Information Report, which is lodged before the New Market Police Station, Sirsi. In the complaint, it is specifically alleged that accused No.1 was looking after the day-to-day bank accounts and accused Nos.2 to 4 were working in different capacities in the complainant- Co-operative Society. Accused No.5 is the wife of accused No.1. The other accused persons, accused Nos.6 to 9 are alleged to have colluded with accused No.1 to siphon out 3 the money of the complainant-society. Though the complainant and accused No.6, the petitioner herein, have absolutely no business transaction, an amount of Rs.1,11,00,046/-, has been transferred to the account of accused No.6 and, in turn, the said amount has been retransmitted to the personal account of accused No.1.
Suspecting the transaction between the complainant-society with accused Nos.6 to 9, through accused Nos.1 to 4. The complainant-society after cross- verification of the statements of accounts furnished by Totagars Co-operative-Society along with the accounts maintained in the complainant-society, and after noticing serious manipulations, has immediately appointed a team headed by Mr. Suresh along with Mr. Murali to visit the complainant-society and to investigate the irregularity and to report the same. After such investigation, the said team has filed a report stating that there were irregularities in the form of falsification of accounts, forgery and misappropriation of around Rs.3,09,61,219/-. Suspecting the hands of accused Nos.1 to 5 on the one side and accused Nos.6 to 9 on the other, the 4 complainant-society has filed a complaint to the police for the purpose of investigating whether there was any forgery or siphoning of the amount of the complainant- society. On the basis of the said complaint, the police have registered a case in Crime No.136/2016 for the offences under Sections 409, 416, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is sought to be quashed by filing this petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that accused No.6, who is the petitioner, admitted that he received an amount of Rs.1,11,00,046/- to his account and, in turn, on 17.10.2016, the Branch Manager of the Complainant-Society has written a letter to the petitioner stating that since they have no business transaction with the Society they requested to arrange for refund of Rs.1,11,00,046/- which was wrongly transferred to the account of accused No.6.
4. There is also a letter written by the petitioner to the complainant-society seeking clarification with regard 5 to the said money. It is alleged by the complainant- society that the said amount, which was transferred to the account of the petitioner has been retransmitted to the personal account of accused No.1, therefore, there is suspicion with regard to the transaction between the complainant-society and accused No.6. Therefore, such a transaction has to be investigated by the police during the course of investigation, with reference to the allegations.
5. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the allegations made creates a serious doubt with regard to the transaction between the complainant and accused Nos.6 to 9 through accused Nos.1 to 4. When there is such a serious allegation of siphoning of the public money by accused Nos.1 to 5 in collusion with accused Nos.6 to 9, at this stage, when it is at the threshold, the First Information Report itself cannot be quashed. The allegations in the First Information Report requires to be investigated by the police. Therefore, in my opinion, at this stage, no strong grounds are made out to quash the proceedings. However, after 6 filing of the charge-sheet, if any cognizance is taken without any basis, without there being any allegations made against the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Court for appropriate remedy. With this observation, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms