Karnataka High Court
Rajaram S/O Vishwanath Hegde, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 21 March, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100060/2017
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100061/2017 AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100062/2017
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100060/2017
BETWEEN :
1. RAJARAM S/O VISHWANATH HEGDE,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND REP. BY
ICICI BANK, DEVIKERE, SIRSI.
2. GANAPATI MANJAPPA HEGDE,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: CHITAMAV, BALESAR,
CHAIRMAN MALLIKARJUN
SEVA SAHAKARI BANK,
BALESAR, SIDDAPUR,
DIST: KARWAR.
3. VISHWANATH DEVENDRA HEGDE,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
ASSISTANT MANAGER
MALLIKARJUN SEVA SAHAKARI BANK,
BALESAR, DIST: KARWAR.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE PSI, SIRSI,
NEW MARKET POLICE STATION,
BY SPP, GROUND FLOOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
2. JITENDRA KUMAR S/O S.D.TIVARI
AGE 37 YEARS, ASSISTANT MANAGER,
ICICI BANK LTD, DHARWAD.
3. THE MANAGER
ICICI BANK, UREKA TOWER,
T.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI
... RESPONDENTS
(By SMT.VEENA HEGDE, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.27 OF 2010 PENDING BEFORE THE
PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS SIRSI FOR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 409, 415, 420,
463, 464, 465, 468, 471 READ WITH 34 OF IPC BY ACQUITTING
THE PETITION.
*****
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100061/2017
BETWEEN:
1. RAJARAM S/O VISHWANATH HEGDE,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND REP. BY
ICICI BANK, DEVIKERE, SIRSI.
2. GANAPATI MANJAPPA HEGDE,
AGE: 72 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: CHITAMAV, BALESAR,
CHAIRMAN MALLIKARJUN
3
SEVA SAHAKARI BANK,
BALESAR, SIDDAPUR,
DIST: KARWAR.
3. VISHWANATH DEVENDRA HEGDE,
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
MALLIKARJUN SEVA SAHAKARI BANK,
BALESAR, DIST: KARWAR.
... PETITIONERS
(By SRI.S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE PSI, SIRSI,
NEW MARKET POLICE STATION,
BY SPP, GROUND FLOOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
2. JITENDRA KUMAR S/O S.D.TIVARI,
AGE 37 YEARS,
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
ICICI BANK LTD.,
DHARWAD.
3. THE MANAGER
ICICI BANK, UREKA TOWER,
T.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.28 OF 2010 PENDING BEFORE THE
PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS SIRSI FOR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 409, 415, 420,
4
463, 464, 465, 468, 471 READ WITH 34 OF IPC BY ACQUITTING
THE PETITION.
*****
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100062/2017
BETWEEN:
RAJARAM S/O VISHWANATH HEGDE,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND REP. BY
ICICI BANK, DEVIKERE, SIRSI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE PSI, SIRSI,
NEW MARKET POLICE STATION,
BY SPP, GROUND FLOOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
2. JITENDRA KUMAR,
S/O S.D. TIVARI,
AGE 37 YEARS,
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
ICICI BANK LTD.,
DHARWAD.
3. THE MANAGER
ICICI BANK, UREKA TOWER,
T.B.ROAD HUBBALLI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.29 OF 2010 PENDING BEFORE THE
5
PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS SIRSI FOR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 409, 415, 420,
463, 464, 465, 468, 471 READ WITH 34 OF IPC BY ACQUITTING
THE PETITION.
*********
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in all the above said cases have filed these petitions seeking quashing of the criminal cases pending against them before the Principal JMFC, Sirsi in CC Nos.27, 28 and 29 of 2010 registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 415, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that:
FIR was lodged by one Jitendra Kumar, claiming himself to be the authorised signatory for ICICI Bank Ltd., before the Senior Police Inspector, Sub-urban Police Station, Hubballi, for the alleged offences and the same has been registered in Crime No.337/2006 and after 6 investigation, the Sirsi police have laid three charge sheets in CC Nos.27, 28 and 29 of 2010 as noted above.
3. The allegations made in the complaint are that the petitioners while working as Rural Marketing Associates and representatives for and on behalf of ICICI Bank, entrusted with the business of ICICI Bank. It is alleged that the petitioners have given false assurances induced the customers of ICICI Bank to deposit huge amounts in ICICI Bank. In-turn the customers believing the said representation, deposited and handed over some amounts by way of cheques and DD's to the petitioners. But in- turn, petitioners did not deposit the same to ICICI Bank. Therefore, the customers have suffered financial loss, due to the illegal and fraudulent acts of the petitioners. It is also alleged that the said amounts were deposited in the personal accounts of the petitioners. The ICICI Bank has alleged that by doing the above said fraudulent and illegal acts, the petitioners have not only committed fraud on the customers but also on the ICICI Bank. The said monitory 7 loss accrued to the customers of the ICICI Bank was to the tune of Rs.150 lakhs. Therefore, the ICICI requested the police to take action accordingly as noted above.
4. The Assistant Manager, ICICI Bank, it appears has also directed some co-operative societies who are the aggrieved customers of ICICI Bank to file separate complaints against the petitioners for the loss sustained by them for the fraudulent and illegal acts committed by the petitioners; accordingly those customers have filed separate criminal cases against the petitioners. The details are given below ;
(1) CC No.7/2010 is filed by Chief Executive, Yadalli Society;
(2) CC No.8/2010 is filed by Bhakkal Society; (3) CC No.9/2010 is filed by Bhairumbe Society; (4) CC No.10/2010 is filed by Menasi Co-operative Society, Vannalli;
(5) CC No.11/2010 is filed by TAPCMS, Sirsi; 8 (6) CC No.12/2010 is filed by Hulekala Co-operative Society;
(7) CC No.13/2010 is filed by Balesena Co-operative Society.
5. In the above said cases, the Co-operative Societies noted above, have compromised the matter with the respective accused persons. As some of the offences were found to be non-compoundable, therefore, the petitioners herein have filed Criminal Petitions before this Court seeking quashing of the said criminal cases. Likewise in-
(1) Crl.P. No.100518/2016 filed against CC No.7/2010; (2) Crl.P. No.102093/2015 filed against CC No.8/2010; (3) Crl.P. No.102094/2015 filed against CC No.9/2010; (4) Crl.P. No.102097/2015 filed against CC No.10/2010; (5) Crl.P. No.102098/2015 filed against CC No.11/2010; (6) Crl.P. No.100286/2016 filed against CC No.12/2010; (7) Crl.P. No.101435/2016 filed against CC No.13/2010. The above said criminal cases have been quashed by this court accepting the compromise between the parties, which virtually amounted to acquittal of the petitioners in the above said criminal cases.
9
6. The leaned counsel for the petitioners submit that though the same allegations are made in the above said criminal cases, they were all ended in acquittal by virtue of the quashing of the proceedings by this court, nothing remains to the ICICI Bank to proceed with the accused persons in CC Nos.27 to 29 of 2010 which are presently pending before the Prl.JMFC Court, Sirsi.
7. The learned counsel further contends that if the said proceedings are allowed to be continued, the same amounts to double jeopardy sofar as the petitioners are concerned. He also further contends that the ICICI Bank has addressed a letter to the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Sirsi dated 19.12.2015 narrating that there is no person as such by name Jitendra Kumar son of Tiwari (complainant in those criminal cases) and further said that the said person never in the employment of ICICI Bank. Therefore, the learned counsel submit that when the complainant himself is not available to the court, the court should have closed the matter and acquitted the accused 10 persons. He further contends that this court while disposing of the Criminal Petition No.100323/2016 directed the trial Court to expedite the matter and dispose of the case by the end of December, 2016. But still the court has not disposed of the said matter. Therefore, for all these reasons, he requests this court to quash the above said cases pending on the file of the Principal JMFC, Sirsi in CC Nos.27, 28 and 29 of 2010.
8. The above factual aspects though disclose that this Court has quashed the Criminal Cases in CC Nos.7 to 13 of 2010 as detailed supra, but the cases filed by the ICICI Bank against the petitioners registered in different criminal cases, i.e., C.C. Nos.27 to 29 of 2010, are still pending. Though the offences are similar in nature but at this stage this Court can not quash the proceedings when the matter is already set down for evidence. The trial Court has to examine whether the examination of all the witnesses cited by the prosecution is necessary in view of the compromise entered into between the other co- 11 operative Societies as noted above with the accused persons and consequential quashing of the criminal cases in CC Nos.7 to 13 of 2010. The Assistant Public Prosecutor attached to the said Court also has to bestow his attention in this regard. Whether all the witnesses cited by the Police in the charge sheet are required to be summoned before the Court or whether in view of the absence of the complainant himself, the Court can proceed with the case to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners. But this Court can not do that exercise without looking into the entire charge sheets. It is ultimately the Prosecutor who is prosecuting the case before the trial Court and after application of judicious mind the Court has to take appropriate decision in this regard.
9. This Court, in fact, on the earlier occasion as noted above, has directed the trial Court to dispose of the cases in C.C. Nos.27 to 29/2010 within a span of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. But, till today it appears, the cases have not been 12 disposed of nor any extension of time has been sought by the learned Judge who is presiding over that Court. Without extension of time if the cases are not disposed of, it amounts to violation of the orders passed by this Court. Therefore, the registry is hereby directed to call for the explanation from the judicial officer, why action should not be taken for not disposing of the above said cases within the time prescribed nor seeking for any extension of time before this Court.
10. Irrespective of the above said explanation being sought from the judicial officer concerned, the concerned judicial officer is hereby directed to dispose of the above said cases within a span of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without fail, otherwise, it would be viewed very seriously. The learned Magistrate has to also apply his judicious mind to the observations made by this Court in the body of the order with reference to the letter addressed by the ICICI Bank with regard to non-availability of the complaint and then 13 take appropriate steps for the purpose of disposal of the cases as expeditiously as possible within the outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observations, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of. Registry to communicate this order to the trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL* Bvv