Karnataka High Court
Manish Bharti vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6250 OF 2016
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8317 OF 2016
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8316 OF 2016
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8315 OF 2016
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8314 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
MANISH BHARTI
S/O MANIK CHANDRA DAS
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT SHOBHA ALTHEA
NO.2111, HAROHALLI
YELAHANKA
BANGALORE-560 064
... PETITIONER
(COMMON)
(BY SRI: ARUN GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HALASUR POLICE STATION
HALASUR SUB-DIVISION
HALASUR
BANGALORE-560 024
2
2. METABYTE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MANU MEHTA
EMBASSY HEIGHTS
13TH MAGRATH ROAD
13/25, 3RD FLOOR
'C' BLOCK
BANGALORE-560 025
... RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
(BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI: S.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6250 OF 2016
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPANY THROUGH THE 1ST
RESPONDENT POLICE VIDE FILING OF FIR DATED 10.07.2016
WHICH STOOD REGISTERED AS CR.NO.277/2015 ON THE FILE
OF 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE INITIALLY AGAINST THE
PETITIONER HEREIN, HIS WIFE AND MOTHER IN LAW FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408, 420 AND 506
R/W 34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENT TAKING INTO COGNIZANCE
BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN RESPECT OF THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408 AND 420 OF IPC AGAINST
THE PETITIONER ALONE BY MEANS OF THE ORDER OF THE IV
A.C.M.M., MAYOHALL, BANGALORE DATED 18.03.2016 IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 27.01.2016
FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AND NOW SEIZED OF
IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FILE OF LEARNED MAGISTRATE
IN C.C.NO.8418/2016 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE
ABUSE OF THE PROCESS.
3
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8317 OF 2016
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPANY THROUGH THE
1ST RESPONDENT POLICE VIDE FILING OF FIR DATED
10.07.2016 WHICH STOOD REGISTERED AS CR.NO.277/2015
ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE INITIALLY AGAINST
THE PETITIONER HEREIN, HIS WIFE AND MOTHER IN LAW FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408, 420, 506
R/W 34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY TAKING INTO
COGNIZANCE BY THE MAGISTRATE IN RESPECT OF THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408 AND 420 OF IPC
AGAINST THE PETITIONER ALONE BY MEANS OF THE ORDER OF
IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY DATED 18.03.2016 IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 27.01.2016
FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AND NOW SEIZED OF
IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FILE OF MAGISTRATE IN
C.C.NO.9200/2016 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE
ABUSE OF THE PROCESS.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8316 OF 2016
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPANY THROUGH THE
1ST RESPONDENT POLICE VIDE FILING OF FIR DATED
10.7.2016 WHICH STOOD REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.277/2015
ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE INITIALLY AGAINST
PETITIONER HEREIN, HIS WIFE AND MOTHER IN LAW FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408, 420, 506 R/W
SEC.34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY TAKING INTO
COGNIZANCE BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN RESPECT OF
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408 AND 420 OF
IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER ALONE BY MEANS OF THE ORDER
OF THE IV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU DATED 18.03.2016 IN
4
FURTHERANCE OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 27.1.2016 FILED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AND NOW SEIZED OF IN THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FILE OF LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN
C.C.NO.9199/2016 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE
ABUSE OF THE PROCESS AND ALSO TO SECURE THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8315 OF 2016
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPANY THROUGH THE
1ST RESPONDENT POLICE VIDE FILING OF FIR DATED
10.7.2016 WHICH STOOD REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.277/2015
ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE INITIALLY AGAINST
PETITIONER HEREIN, HIS WIFE AND MOTHER IN LAW FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408,420,506 R/W 34
OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY TAKING INTO COGNIZANCE BY
THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN RESPECT OF THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408 AND 420 OF IPC AGAINST
THE PETITIONER ALONE BY MEANS OF THE ORDER OF THE IV
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE DATED 18.03.2016 IN FURTHERANCE OF
THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 27.1.2016 FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT POLICE AND NOW SEIZED OF IN THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FILE OF LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN
C.C.NO.9198/2016 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE
ABUSE OF THE PROCESS AND ALSO TO SECURE THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8314 OF 2016
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPANY THROUGH THE
1ST RESPONDENT POLICE VIDE FILING OF FIR DATED
10.7.2016 WHICH STOOD REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.277/2015
5
ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE INITIALLY AGAINST
PETITIONER HEREIN, HIS WIFE AND MOTHER IN LAW FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408, 420, 506 R/W
SEC.34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY TAKING INTO
COGNIZANCE BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN RESPECT OF
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 408 AND 420 OF
IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER ALONE BY MEANS OF THE ORDER
OF THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE DATED 18.03.2016 IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 27.1.2016 FILED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AND NOW SEIZED OF IN THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FILE OF LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN
C.C.NO.9197/2016 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE
ABUSE OF THE PROCESS AND ALSO TO SECURE THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner has sought to quash the charge sheet laid against him for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 408 of Indian Penal Code in C.C.Nos.8418/2016, 9200/2016, 9199/2016, 9198/2016 and 9197/2016 presently pending on the file of IV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the records.
6
2. The allegations against the petitioner is that during his tenure as Vice President & General Manager of India operations with M/s. Metabyte India Private Limited, Bengaluru, from 2007-2014, the petitioner herein misappropriated sums of Rs.52,51,587/- and utilized a sum of Rs.11,22,052/-(2008- 2009), Rs.24,58,702/-(2013-2014), Rs.19,96,428/-(2012- 2013), Rs.16,03,959/-(2010-2011) and Rs.8,82,354/-(2009- 2010) for his personal use.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution instituted against the petitioner is malicious, vexatious and a vindictive attempt by respondent No.2/employer. The petitioner served the company without any blemish from the year 2007 onwards. On account of better prospects, he tendered resignation to the company and only after his resignation, the instant prosecution has been engineered by the employer making false and baseless allegation. The auditor's report has been made the sole basis for the allegation of misappropriation of funds, but the very same auditor had certified the returns of the company without 7 detecting any illegalities in the accounts of the company. He further submitted that the material collected by the investigating agency does not establish the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. Even though there are allegations that the funds of the company were siphoned off and were diverted to the account of wife of the petitioner/accused, the records produced alongwith the charge sheet indicate that the wife of the petitioner was also employed with the very same employer. All these circumstances indicate that false and vexatious complaint has been filed against the petitioner solely out of spite and the charges levelled against the petitioner being false and not based on any reliable and acceptable evidence, the prosecution of the petitioner is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of Court.
4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE (GOVERNMENT. OF NCT OF DELHI) DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND ANOTHER, reported in AIR 2010 SC 210. Learned counsel has also assailed the order passed by the learned magistrate in 8 taking cognizance of the alleged offences and placing reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609 pointed out that the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate on the face of it indicates that the learned Magistrate has failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case and has mechanically issued summons to the petitioner contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision.
5. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the allegations made against the petitioner are substantiated with cogent and acceptable evidence. The Auditor who submitted the report has detailed various instances of breach of trust committed by the petitioner. The manner in which the funds of the company are siphoned off are sought to be established by production of the account statement of the company as well as the account of wife and mother-in-law of the petitioner and necessary proof regarding diversion of EMI towards personal car loan availed by the 9 petitioner are also available on record and therefore there is no ground to quash the proceedings. Further assailing the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.p.C, learned counsel has emphasized that as against the order of taking cognizance, adequate remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and hence, the petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
6. Learned counsel has also taken up a plea that the contentions urged by the petitioner are based on disputed facts which are required to be proved only during trial and these contentions cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of RAJ KAPOOR AND ORS. vs. STATE AND ORS. reported in AIR 1980 SC 258.
Considered the above submissions and perused the records.
7. The allegations made in the charge sheet and the documents filed alongwith the petition are perused, it goes to 10 show that direct allegations are levelled against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has committed breach of trust and has misappropriated funds of the company. In order to substantiate these allegations, cogent material has been produced, the correctness or genuineness whereof cannot be examined by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Even though, it is contended that entire exercise is malafide and vexatious, yet having regard to the documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution, the prosecution launched against the petitioner cannot be quashed.
8. Insofar as the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate is concerned, a reading of the said order reveals that the learned magistrate has perused the statement of the witnesses and the material on record and has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 408 and 420 Indian Penal Code. At the stage of taking cognizance, learned Magistrate is not required to assess the evidence nor is he required to assign elaborate reasons. The impugned order reveals that the learned Magistrate has found sufficient material 11 to proceed in the matter. Such indications are reflected in the order dated 18.03.2016. Even otherwise, on going through the charge sheet, I find that there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offences. As such, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
For the above reasons, petitions fails and the same stand dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial court on such grounds available under law. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, trial court may consider the application, if any, submitted by the petitioner for grant of exemption from personal appearance favourably.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-